Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNT REVENTLOW.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Count Reventlow still remains the Danish Minister to the Court of St. James, or what his status is?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Richard Law): After the German occupation of Denmark, Count Reventlow was regarded as charged informally with the protection of certain Danish interests not under enemy control. In December last, Count Reventlow issued a communiqué to the Press to the effect that he had informed the Danish Ministry for Foreign Affairs that, as a consequence of the Danish adherence to the Anti-Comintern Pact, he could no longer in his existing relations with the Danish Government, worthily and effectively carry out his official duties as Danish Envoy. Count Reventlow has now assumed the Honorary Presidency of the Association of Free Danes in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In these circumstances, His Majesty's Government have decided to recognise Count Reventlow as continuing to be responsible for the protection of such Danish interests as are not under enemy control.

Mr. Mander: Is the Association of Free Danes recognised by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Law: That is another question. His Majesty's Government have recognised the Danish Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AMERICAN REPUBLICS.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which South American Republics that have severed

diplomatic relations with our enemies, are actually engaged in combatant action in conjunction with ourselves and our Allies?

Mr. Law: None, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

BATTLE OF BRITAIN (RESERVE AIRCRAFT).

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many fighter aeroplanes we had in reserve at the conclusion of the Battle of Britain?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): My hon. Friend will not expect me to give a detailed answer to this Question, but I can assure him that an appreciable reserve of fighter aircraft was available for immediate action at the conclusion of the Battle of Britain.

Mr. Walkden: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the danger and mischief that are created by such a person as an air commodore who opened a War Weapons Week and declared that we had only nine and that he had good reason for saying so? That is the actual claim he made. Why was publicity given to it?

Sir A. Sinclair: My hon. Friend's Question brought this speech to my notice, and I made inquiries about it.

Mr. Walkden: Will the Minister take disciplinary action?

Sir Herbert Williams: What was the result of the inquiry?

Sir A. Sinclair: I have only just made the inquiry.

Sir H. Williams: Do I understand that there is no organisation in the Air Ministry which reads the Press to find out what has been said?

Sir A. Sinclair: No doubt there is.

Mr. Walkden: Will disciplinary action be taken against this officer?

Sir A. Sinclair: We must await the result of the inquiry.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Is there not far too much publicity given to facts which should be kept secret?

CHANNEL NAVAL ACTION.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many aircraft that


could have been used operationally to attack the "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau," on 12th February, 1942, were detained at or near their stations owing to pre-arranged inspections by senior officers of the Royal Air Force?

Sir A. Sinclair: None, Sir.

Mr. Simmonds: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that any Force with such a splendid fighting spirit as the Royal Air Force is subject to serious misunderstanding if these inspections are allowed to go on when a station feels it might be doing operational duties? Will he have the matter carefully investigated to see whether these inspections ought to be allowed to proceed on these days?

Sir A. Sinclair: This was not an actual inspection. The case to which the hon. Gentleman refers was the presentation of colours to the Belgian Squadron, and it was a ceremony affecting one of our Allied Air Forces.

Mr. Simmonds: Does not the Minister virtually admit that it is possible that some of these aircraft might have been used in the pursuit of these ships?

Sir A. Sinclair: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised that point, because I do not admit that at all. The squadrons which were stationed at that particular aerodrome were among the first to take off in the operations.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is it not a fact that the "Scharnhorst" and the "Gneisenau" could, and should, have been sunk by the Royal Air Force?

DISTINGUISHED SERVICE.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for Air the present policy of the Air Ministry in regard to disclosing the identity of officers and airmen who render distinguished service against the enemy?

Sir A. Sinclair: The broad policy is to restrict publication of the names of personnel who have rendered distinguished service to those receiving an award of a decoration or a "Mention in Despatches." Exceptions can be made in the case of leaders of operations or of captains of aircraft and other aircrew concerned in outstanding incidents.

BALLOON COMMAND (BOOKLET).

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for Air when it is proposed to publish a brochure dealing with the achievements and activities of Balloon Command?

Sir A. Sinclair: The story of Balloon Command will form part of a booklet on the work of balloons, guns and searchlights, in the air defence of Great Britain which is being prepared jointly by the War Office and Air Ministry. I hope that it may be possible to issue the booklet at an early date.

Mr. MacLaren: Will it deal with the work of some of the wing commanders of that section?

OFFICERS (EFFICIENCY INQUIRY).

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he proposes to follow the example of the Army Council and cause a survey to be made of the qualifications of all officers of the General Duties Branch of the rank of group captain and below who have reached the age of 45?

Flight-Lieutenant Ralph Etherton: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, with a view to increasing the efficiency and vigour of Royal Air Force administration, he will order a general review similar to that recently instituted by an Army Council Instruction on the efficiency and alertness of officers over the age of 45 years; and what provisions at present exist for the retirement of officers of various ranks on reaching any specific age and state the age applicable to each rank?

Sir A. Sinclair: There is already in existence in the Royal Air Force a procedure for ensuring that the capabilities of officers, whatever their age or rank, are kept under constant review. Reports are rendered on them either annually or specially as circumstances may require and those whose services are not satisfactory are placed on the retired list or called upon to relinquish their commissions. There have, in fact, been a number of retirements and resignations of officers of all ranks from the highest to the lowest, and accordingly, I see no need for a special review of the kind suggested. The compulsory retiring ages of regular


officers in the various branches of the Service are set out in detail in King's Regulations and Air Council Instructions. Regular officers reaching their retiring ages during the war may be retained on the active list at the discretion of the Air Council.

Major Milner: If these officers are retired compulsorily and not under the age limit, have they a right of appeal?

Sir A. Sinclair: Not if they are retired because there is no employment available for them, but if there was any suggestion affecting their professional honour, they would have the right of appeal.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION.

YOUTHS (DISMISSAL).

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production what disciplinary action, apart from the fine in the police court, has been taken in regard to the case of Mills and Fern in a West Midland town, with which he is acquainted?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Mr. Ben Smith): These two youths have been dismissed for grave misconduct.

SIR ALEXANDER GIBB AND PARTNERS.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production the value of the work undertaken by Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners for his Department during the year ended 31st December, 1941, or convenient date, and the fees paid or credited to them during the same period?

Mr. Ben Smith: The work carried out in 1941 under this firm's supervision amounted to £326,000. In the same period they received £1,579 as fees.

Mr. Stokes: Do these fees include all expenses incurred by the engineers at the site, or were they included in the cost of works?

Mr. Smith: I would like notice of that.

FACTORY EMPLOYEE'S DISMISSAL.

Sir Richard Acland: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether he has considered communications received from the production side of the management and from the workers in an aircraft factory whose name has been supplied to him; and whether he has

been able to take steps to secure the reinstatement of the individual referred to in these communications pending an inquiry into the circumstances of his dismissal?

Mr. Ben Smith: We have been informed by the managing firm that they are dispensing with the services of the gentleman referred to in consequence of a reorganisation designed to give increased output at this and another factory under the same management. Representations from members of the staff have been received, but, after careful consideration, my right hon. Friend sees no reason to question the judgment of the managing firm.

Sir R. Acland: In view of the fact that this man retained the confidence of the production managers in the works, do the Government propose to take any steps to satisfy these men that his dismissal was in the interests of production and not in the financial interests of Rootes Securities?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend's Question does not raise any issue of the financial structure of the firm, but he can take my word for it that I have interviewed the management, and have seen representatives of the executive staff and everybody connected with this case, and I am satisfied that the matter should remain where it is.

Sir R. Acland: In view of the fact that this action has been responsible for a devastating fall in morale and output in this factory, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter again at the earliest possible moment.

NORTH-WEST AREA (CONDITIONS).

Mr. Logan: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether, after his visit to the North-West area, he can report satisfactory consultations; whether he is satisfied with co-operation of management and men; and will he see that future complaints can be dealt with locally instead of deputations having to come to London?

Mr. Ben Smith: My right hon. Friend had satisfactory consultations with all concerned during his recent tour of factories in the North-West area. He is satisfied that managements and work-people are doing their best to overcome the different and difficult problems in each


of the factories visited by him. In regard to the last part of the Question, he considers that it is always better for these matters to be dealt with locally.

Mr. Logan: In order to avoid these matters being raised constantly on the Floor of the House, will the Minister arrange for Members of Parliament from the localities concerned to be allowed to be present to hear what happens?

Mr. Smith: I think that Supplementary Question raises a matter which goes outside the realm of my Department. My hon. Friend will have heard the statement in my reply that my right hon. Friend considers it is always better for these matters to be dealt with locally.

Mr. Logan: Does my hon. Friend think that, in their representative capacity, the Members of Parliament from any particular city are deaf, dumb, and blind?

RAILINGS REMOVAL.

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether he is aware of the serious damage which is being sustained to property in Ealing and district through the careless manner in which railings are being uprooted; that they are being removed merely by the use of sledge-hammers in unskilled hands; and, in view of this, will he consider making it compulsory for railings to be removed by acetylene burners so far as practicable, and in all other cases that contracting by the ton should be dispensed with, and replaced by contracting on a time basis?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): I am aware that damage has been done, in Ealing and elsewhere, and that in some cases this has been due to careless or unskilled workmanship. In all such cases the contractor is required to make good the damage; but there is inevitably some delay before this can be done. I regret that the burning off of railings is not practicable as a general rule, as the available supplies of gas and acetylene burners are urgently needed for war work of great importance. Various bases of contracting have been considered, but I am satisfied that the alternative of

carrying out this work by prime cost contracts should not be adopted.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that as long as contracts on the present basis are continued, the contractors' only interest will be to collect the maximum amount of railings in the minimum amount of time, and that householders and property owners will have to suffer as a result; and will he not consider a more equitable means for the removal of railings?

Mr. Hicks: The question of other forms of contracts has been considered, but the necessity and urgency of getting this metal has been the condition which has decided in favour of these contracts. I hope that at a not too far distant date the property will be restored, I hope to the satisfaction of the owners.

Mr. Leslie Boyce: Will not the Department make representations to the contractors that they should not destroy property as carelessly as they are doing at the present time, when the removal of a few shillings' worth of railings causes many pounds' worth of damage?

Mr. Hicks: That representation has been made to them, and their hearts have been appealed to, but some of them are rather stubborn.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Ealing district gates of artistic value are taken away without the owner being given any opportunity to appeal?

Mr. Hicks: That is not true. Notice has been given and published that anyone who wants to make an appeal against the taking of any railings or gates of artistic or historic merit can do so.

Sir H. Williams: Has the hon. Gentleman read the letter which I sent to him, giving a case of gates valued at £12 being smashed, without any such opportunity being given, to obtain scrap valued at 1s 1¼d.?

Mr. Hicks: I have read the letter and replied to it, and I hope the hon. Member will be satisfied with the reply.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether he will instruct the local authorities, particularly in London,


not to remove iron railings guarding the basements in front of houses, in view of the serious danger of accidents to pedestrians in the black-out and to children at all times?

Mr. Hicks: The direction to local authorities clearly states that no railings should be scheduled that are required for the safety of the public. If any railings to basement areas have been removed in consequence of undetected errors in scheduling, alternative protection is being provided.

GOVERNMENT BUILDING CONTRACTS.

Mr. MacLaren: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings how many Government building contracts have been given to Richard Costain, Limited; and what is the total amount involved?

Mr. Hicks: During the past 12 months, 20 contracts to the total value of approximately £1,560,000 have been let by Government Departments to Richard Costain, Limited. Four of these to the value of approximately £555,000 were let by the Ministry of Works.

Mr. McKinlay: Is the work measured, and are scheduled rates admitted?

Mr. Hicks: Three of the contracts were competitive. I cannot give any details.

Mr. McKinlay: Were scheduled rates admitted, and was payment based on the measurement of those scheduled rates when the contract was completed?

Mr. Hicks: I should want notice of that Question.

Mr. MacLaren: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings, with regard to the firm of Howard and Souster, architects, now engaged upon Government contracts, what, to date, is the total sum agreed to be paid to them as fees for professional work in connection with these contracts?

Mr. Hicks: The total sum agreed to be paid, to date, to the firm for professional services in connection with the Commission held by the firm of Howard and Souster with my Department, is approximately £8,100. I am obtaining informa-

tion regarding work which the firm may have in hand for other Government Departments and will inform my hon. Friend.

BARBED WIRE, LONDON PARKS.

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether, in view of the large amount of barbed wire being placed in and around the London parks and, in view of the danger therefrom to pedestrians during the black-out period, he will arrange to have plain guard wires in suitable positions?

Mr. Hicks: In view of the necessity for conserving stocks of metal, I regret that I am unable to adopt the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion. I am not aware of any accidents to pedestrians owing to barbed wire during the blackout hours, but, if the hon. and gallant Member has any particular danger points in mind, I will consider the desirability of installing suitable warning lights.

Sir J. Lucas: Has the Minister considered the effect on courting couples when the weather gets better?

Mr. Stokes: What is the sense in putting this barbed wire round spaces which have been made open?

Mr. Hicks: I think my previous answer covers that question.

BUILDING TRADE OPERATIVES (NON-ESSENTIAL WORK).

Mr. Bossom: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether his Department possesses any statistics regarding the number of building trade operatives, skilled and unskilled, still employed upon non-essential work; and are there any building trade operatives unoccupied, but standing by, ready to make repairs in the event of serious enemy action?

Mr. Hicks: Continuous action is taken through the operation of the Civil Building Licensing Control, and in other ways, to ensure, as far as possible, that no building and civil engineering work is carried out which is not of an essential character. I have no statistics to indicate the number of workers still so employed,


but a close investigation is now being made. With regard to the second part of the Question, there are no building trade operatives kept unoccupied in order to be available to do urgent air damage repair work.

Mr. Bossom: Is my hon. Friend aware that if one goes by almost any of these bombed places, one sees men messing about trying to straighten up these places, and does he know how many men are needed on work essential for carrying on the war which is still delayed at the present time?

Mr. Hicks: I can assure the hon. Member that the question of the building labour and building needs of the country is under very keen review every day, and as far as we are concerned, every economy is exercised in the employment of labour.

Mr. Bossom: Is my hon. Friend aware that if he takes a walk from the House to Oxford Circus, he will see at least 100 men doing literally nothing at the present time?

Mr. Kirkwood: What about the men sitting here and doing nothing?

MINISTRY OF WORKS AND BUILDINGS (STAFF).

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether, in view of the diminishing amount of building for which his Department is responsible, there is a proportionate reduction in his staff; and whether he can give figures showing the number engaged to-day and a year ago?

Mr. Hicks: During the expansion of the building programme the Ministry avoided large increases in staff by utilising to a considerable extent the services, on a commission basis, of firms in private practice. Up to the present time there has been no such diminution of work falling upon the staff of the Ministry as would warrant a reduction in that staff, but the question of staff in relation to work is under continuous review. The total staff of the Ministry on 1st January, 1942, was 12,720, as compared with 8,670 a year ago. I regret that it is not possible readily to give separate figures for the staff employed solely in connection with the build-

ing programme. The increase indicated is due almost entirely to the large expansion of existing services in connection with the construction, provision and maintenance of buildings and supplies required by civil Departments generally, as well as the large extension of the activities of the Ministry in connection with such matters as control of civil building, registration of builders, recovery of salvage, etc. I should add that, while it is the case that the amount of new work undertaken by the Ministry is beginning rapidly to diminish, it will be some time before this diminution is reflected in the amount of work actually in process.

Mr. Edwards: Is my hon. Friend aware that many Government Departments which have to depend on his Ministry for building now consider that the delays incurred suggest that his Ministry is becoming quite top heavy and cannot do the work for which it has been so ill designed, and is he considering the question of allowing the building Departments to revert to the Ministries concerned?

Mr. Hicks: I am not aware of the point which my hon. Friend raises.

Mr. Edwards: Will my hon. Friend consider a case which I will put before him where 5 per cent. of the work has been done and the completion date is overdue, entirely owing to the fact that his Ministry has held the matter up?

Mr. Hicks: I cannot accept the statement that the completion date is overdue. Frequently the completion date is purely imaginary in relation to the physical factors involved.

Mr. Edwards: Is the hon. Member aware that I am quoting a statement by his Department, which I shall be glad to give him?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

DOCKYARD PRODUCTION.

Mr. Loftus: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, with a view to still further speeding up the building and repair of ships for the Royal Navy, he will give instructions to extend the scope of Warships Weeks so that prominent political, service and trade union speakers will address meetings at all dockyards urging the necessity for every possible effort to improve the sea power of the nation.

The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. George Hall): Warship Weeks were instituted for the purpose of stimulating national saving and to create for our towns and villages a more direct interest in the Royal Navy, and, as my hon. Friend is aware, have in this achieved a marked success. The Admiralty has already taken measures to impress upon the shipyard and dockyard workers the need for maximum effort on their part.

Mr. Loftus: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that he is getting maximum production, or has been getting maximum production, of all ships in the dockyards, and, if not, will he consider every possible step to speed up production? Will he recommend his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty to deliver some of his speeches in the dockyards?

Mr. Hall: If my hon. Friend heard the speeches of my right hon. Friend on the Navy Estimates and on an occasion prior to the Navy Estimates, he will be satisfied that we are getting production, but I am not suggesting that we are getting all the production we should like; there is room for improvement. But I think it is due to the men employed both in the Royal Dockyards and in the shipbuilding yards to point out that conditions are not nearly as bad as some people think. I can assure my hon. Friend that every step is being taken to bring about maximum production.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true, as my hon. Friend said, that most of the people in the Royal Dockyards are really working hard and well? It is not a question of speech-making; they are doing it, and will do it without speeches. In the case of others who are not working hard, some other action will have to be taken.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is my hon. Friend aware that behind this Question is the suggestion if you give a lecture to the workers everything will be all right? Is he aware it is not the workers at all, and that the whole of the shipyards, particularly the yards which repair ships, are in a state of chaos due to the Admiralty? Is he aware that on the Clyde three retired Admirals, who know nothing about it, are in charge of the shipbuilding?

Mr. Hall: I cannot accept the statement which has been made by my hon.

Friend. I recently made a short visit to the Clyde.

Mr. Kirkwood: I know, and you said you would tell me all about it when you came up in the train, but you did not do so.

Mr. Hall: I repeat that this visit satisfied me that the majority of the men on the Clyde are doing their best.

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment, not merely on the aspects contained in the Question, but in regard to a speech made by an hon. and gallant Member of this House at a Warship Week. I beg to give notice that I shall raise the general question of Warship Weeks being made the subject of slanderous attacks upon the working classes.

SEA CADETS.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, what arrangements have now been made for the intake of an increased number of Sea Cadets?

Mr. George Hall: The arrangements in question are still under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to give details.

Mr. Lindsay: Is my hon. Friend aware that many boys who have now registered and been interviewed have elected to join the units and no units exist in London? Is he aware that I warned the First Lord a month ago about this, and is the matter still under consideration because the present position raises false hopes and is contrary to the whole spirit of the thing?

Mr. Hall: The First Lord is fully seized of the importance of expediting a decision and the organisation in connection with this matter. I can assure my hon. Friend that he can well leave the matter in the hands of the First Lord.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES.

ST. KITTS.

Dr. Morgan: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the particulars sent to him of intimidation and oppression in St. Kitts, practised by the admin-


istration there against trade union officials and organisers who were threatened with internment; and whether, before any trade union official is so interned he will incorporate in local colonial defence regulations the right of appeal to a special tribunal in Britain within a specified period?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With regard to the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) on 4th March. With regard to the second part of the Question, any person detained under Defence Regulations has the right to lodge an objection to an advisory committee. My Noble Friend does not consider that it is practicable or desirable to provide for appeal to a tribunal in this country.

Dr. Morgan: In any local regulations which are made, will an attempt be made to ensure that there is no despotism by local officials against trade union organisations?

Mr. Macmillan: I cannot accept the suggestion contained in that question.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that the day for treating natives as under-dogs has gone?

DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what action has been taken on the reports made by the Comptroller for Development and Welfare in the West Indies on the questions of agriculture, public health and drainage in British Guiana; and what is the total sum granted to the Colony for these purposes?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: The Colonial Government have prepared a number of applications for assistance from Colonial Development and Welfare funds, following the recommendations made by the Comptroller and his advisers. These applications cover a wide sphere in agriculture, public health, drainage and irrigation and other fields. Some of them are now under consideration, and four have already been approved. The total sum so far granted to the Colony under these schemes is £24,775.

Mr. Mathers: Does the Colonial Office recognise that a good way to keep the good services of those in the Colonies is to deal with these matters?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir. We are most anxious to do that, but there are also difficulties about materials and so on which have to be overcome.

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies why it is that out of a total of 101 schemes submitted by the governments of the West Indian Islands from the passing of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act till the end of 1941 only 40 had been approved; and whether there has since been any addition to the number submitted or to the number approved?

Mr. Macmillan: The number of applications for assistance which have been received from the West Indies up to date is 117. Schemes have been made under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act to cover 53 of these, and it is hoped that schemes in respect of 26 others will be made in the near future. Of the balance, several of those more recently received are still under consideration or are awaiting recommendations from the Comptroller for Development and Welfare. It has, however, been found necessary to refer in a certain number of cases to the Colony concerned for further information; and in a few cases, applications relate to projects which are not suitable for assistance under the Act.

Mr. Dugdale: Is it the intention of the Department that schemes should be proceeded with as rapidly as possible in war-time?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir, but there are difficulties, which are increasing, regarding materials and so forth.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICA.

PALM KERNEL INDUSTRY.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any steps have yet been taken to set up a control board to regulate the West African palm kernel export trade; and, if so, whether he can state the prices which it is proposed to authorise?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: The question of the establishment of a board to control the production and export of certain agricultural products, including palm kernels, from West Africa is being actively pursued. I do not anticipate, however, that as the result only of the establishment of a board there will be any substantial change in the prices paid to the growers for palm kernels.

Mr. Harvey: May we anticipate that there will be a stabilisation of prices, which will be greatly in the interests of the growers?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir. That is already going on.

REPRESENTATIVE INSTITUTIONS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will, in view of the relevant clauses in the Atlantic Charter, announce plans for the more rapid democratisation of West African institutions including the native authorities; whether he will frame proposals to establish adult franchise, to eliminate official majorities on legislative councils, to appoint at least six Africans to the Governor's Executive Council in each Colony and ensure that a majority on municipal councils should be Africans; and whether African democratic organisations and personalities will be consulted to this end?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: It continues to be the policy to introduce representative institutions in West Africa as the local populations become ready for them. But His Majesty's Government could not lend themselves to the pretence of framing proposals for establishing adult franchise in communities where that system can have no reality. In all the West African Dependencies the Legislative Councils contain African members nominated to represent the local communities, while in Nigeria, the Gold Coast and Sierra Leone, there are also African elected members. These persons are well qualified to advise the Governors on constitutional questions and their positions as Legislative Councillors affords them opportunities of doing so.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that his reply will not give satisfaction to West Africans? The proposals in the Question have received the endorsement of representative

Africans in this country and elsewhere, and does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is desirable that some great endeavour should be made to impress West Africans with our determination to assist their political progress?

Mr. Macmillan: The character of the hon. Member's Question shows that it is very difficult to deal with the matter by Question and answer. It requires much more general discussion of the large number of important problems which arise from the Question.

Captain McEwen: Is it not a fact that democracy is a form of government and not a universal panacea?

Mr. Creech Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to an overhaul of the legislative councils as well as of local government in the whole of West Africa? The time is long overdue for some such overhaul.

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, but I am afraid I must repeat that the character of the various Supplementary Questions shows how difficult it is to deal with this matter by Question and answer.

WAGES AND PRICES.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the percentage increase of wages in Sierra Leone, compared with the increased cost of living; whether he will expedite information from West African Colonies respecting cost of living and increase in wages; whether he will indicate the nature and scope of measures taken by West African Governments for the relief of hardship; and, approximately, how many wage earners exist in the West African Colonies?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: As the information asked for by my hon. Friend necessitates a statement of some length, I will, with his permission, circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is still considerable disturbance in the public mind regarding the conditions of the natives in East Africa, and will he speed up the inquiries that are being made regarding the discrepancy between the high cost of living and the low wages?

Mr. Macmillan: Perhaps the hon. Member will read my reply and put down any further Question.
Following is the reply:
The detailed survey made by the Sierra Leone Government, to which reference was made by me in my reply to my hon. Friend's previous Question on the 25th February, was confined to Freetown where it was known that the rise in the cost of living had been exceptionally high. The survey was limited to households whose heads earned less than £3 a month. As stated by me, the Governor has explained that the figure of 75 per cent. rise estimated by the Committee which conducted the survey must be accepted with reserve, owing to the difficulties experienced in securing reliable information from the households from whom information was sought. The difficulties included suspicion of the objects of the investigation, and the tendency of persons who were approached on the one hand to exaggerate their expenditure, and on the other hand not always to disclose full particulars of their income. In this connection I may mention that a profitable source of income at the present time is petty trading, which, on account of the great increase in the prices of native produce, has become a very remunerative sideline in Freetown. The Committee found it very difficult to assess this item. The report concludes by saying that although the increase in the cost of living in Freetown has been extremely marked, the earnings of the average household have increased considerably at the same time, although it is not possible to obtain sufficiently accurate data to determine how large these increases are.
The survey was made in February, 1941, at which time the lowest paid class of Government workers was in receipt of wages of 1s. per day. The Government, after careful consideration of the report, reached the conclusion that a fair bonus would be one at the rate of 5d. per day for such labour. In May, 1941, the basic wage rate for such labourers was raised from 1s. to 1s. 2d. per, day, and the cost of living bonus which was authorised in November, 1941, was consequently fixed on the basis of 3d. instead of 5d. per day. The bonus takes the form of an issue of food to that value or cash in lieu. Other labourers up to and including those earning 5s. 11d. per day receive bonuses ranging between 5d. and 1d. per day.
The answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative. With re-

gard to the third part, the reply I gave on 25th February indicates the nature and scope of the measures taken and shows that all the West African Governments are fully alive to the necessity for ensuring that hardship arising out of the increased cost of living shall so far as possible be minimised. The position regarding the number of wage earners in West Africa has substantially altered during the war, and reliable statistics of the present number of wage earners are not available.

LOSS OF STEAMSHIP "STRUMA."

Mr. Lipson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now make a statement concerning the sinking of the "Struma" with 769 passengers on board, including 270 women and 70 children?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: The "Struma" was a converted yacht of about 200 tons. Flying the Panamanian flag, she left Con-stanza last October with some 769 Jews on board with the intention of effecting their entry illegally into Palestine. She reached Istanbul about mid-December, when she was described as being badly overcrowded, and thereafter considerable repairs to her engines had to be effected. While she was lying at Istanbul, the Turkish authorities intimated that the passengers could not be allowed to remain in Turkey. The Palestine Government also made it clear, with the support of His Majesty's Government, that they could not be admitted to Palestine. This action was in conformity with the policy consistently followed since the establishment of the mandatory régime and publicly confirmed by His Majesty's Government in November, 1940.
When the Turkish authorities found that the passengers would not be admitted to Palestine, they decided on 23rd February to send the vessel back to the Black Sea. On 24th February news was received that she had sunk as a result of an explosion four or five miles from the entrance to the Bosphorus. The cause of the disaster is not definitely established. She may have struck a mine, but the possibility of her having been torpedoed is not excluded as a Turkish vessel was torpedoed in the vicinity about the time.
His Majesty's Government greatly deplore the tragic loss of life which occurred


in this disaster. They had hoped that effect might have been given to the offer of the Palestine Government to admit to Palestine the children on board between the ages of 11 and 16, but this proved impracticable as the Turkish authorities did not feel themselves able to give the necessary permission to land. His Majesty's Government earnestly hope that such a tragedy will not occur again. It does not lie in their power, however, amid the dangers and uncertainties of war, to give any guarantee, nor can they be party to any measures which would undermine the existing policy regarding illegal immigration into Palestine, in view of the wider issues involved. Subject to these reservations, however, I can say that His Majesty's Government will endeavour, so far as lies in their power, to ensure that there is no recurrence of such a disaster as that which befell the "Struma."

Mr. Lipson: Is my hon. Friend aware that a great many people, both in this and other countries, have been shocked by this tragedy? Is he aware that this is the second ship containing unfortunate refugees which has been blown up within a year? May I ask whether he will consult with his Noble Friend to see whether it is possible to make such modifications in the practical application of the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to Palestine as may make tragedies of this kind impossible to occur again?

Mr. Macmillan: I will consult my Noble Friend, but, if my hon. Friend will read the statement I have made, he will see that, subject to the reservation of the general wider policy not being affected, the Government will do everything possible.

Mr. Lipson: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind in those consultations that if the ship had been an enemy ship, German, Italian or Japanese, those on board would have been interned, and will he not consider whether a policy of that kind is not better than exposing them to danger?

Mr. Macmillan: I will convey all those points to my. Noble Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

AFRICAN LABOUR.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether

the Report on the Conscription of African Labourers in Kenya will be made available in this country; and when the scheme will come into operation?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: A few copies of the Report are available in the Colonial Office, and I am sending one to my hon. Friend. The scheme is coming into immediate operation.

Mr. Harvey: Will a copy be placed in the Library of the House?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the great importance of this departure in Colonial policy, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it at an early opportunity.

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in connection with the scheme for compulsory labour in Kenya, there will be any Africans on the Essential Undertakings Board and the District Wages Board?

Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir. The Essential Undertakings Board will probably consist of the Chairman of the Supply Board, the Chairman of the Settlement and Production Board, and the Director of Agriculture. The Central Wages Board, to which I assume my hon. Friend refers, will consist of the Director of Manpower, the Chief Native Commissioner, the Labour Commissioner, a representative of the Medical Department, and the Deputy Chairman of the Settlement and Production Board. This membership is calculated to ensure that the interests of the African employees are effectively safeguarded.

Mr. Dugdale: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it would be far more effective if Africans were included, just as if it were in this country it would be more effective if Englishmen were included?

Mr. Macmillan: That has been considered but the arrangement by which certain gentlemen with special qualifications are looking after the general interests of the Africans is one which operates over a large number of matters affecting African interests and is generally recognised as working satisfactorily.

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how


many non-Africans in Kenya have been called upon to perform compulsory service?

Mr. Macmillan: No figures are available in this country, but the Governor is being asked if he can supply the information.

NORTHERN RHODESIA (AFRICAN LABOUR).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent Africans are being conscripted to work on European farms in Northern Rhodesia; and whether the scheme differs from that approved in Kenya?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: As the reply is a long one, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the reply:
In 1941, there was in Northern Rhodesia an acute shortage of maize for local consumption, and emergency measures had to be taken to import supplies, which could be ill-spared, from neighbouring territories. In order that everything possible should be done to obviate a recurrence of this shortage and of shortages of other foodstuffs for local consumption, immediate steps have been taken to increase the production of foodstuffs to the maximum, especially maize and wheat. Every effort has been made to secure the necessary labour but it has not been possible to obtain the full numbers required under voluntary arrangements. Accordingly, in view of the urgent necessity of securing the required labour at once in order that the land may be prepared in time for planting, my Noble Friend has agreed to the Governor's proposal to use compulsory powers for a limited period of two months to deal with the immediate necessity and for the compulsory recruitment of up to 600 labourers on European farms. The Governor has, therefore, taken compulsory powers under emergency regulations for the period expiring on the 30th April to conscript labour for essential work on farms, and he will use the regulations to obtain such number of the 600 labourers as are not obtainable voluntarily. The Government has taken steps to ensure that the conditions of employment on the farms are fair

and equitable. Labour conscripted under the emergency regulations will receive a rate of pay not less than the average rates paid to farm labour and rations to the satisfaction of the Government. Expansion of native production will proceed side by side with European, and the Governor is satisfied that the recruitment for farms during the next two months will not prejudice native production in any way.

CEYLON (FOOD SUPPLIES).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of anxiety respecting rice supplies for Ceylon, he is satisfied that adequate rice reserves and supplies do and will exist; what provision is being made for the future; approximately how much rice is required in normal times and now; whether the present population has recently increased or decreased; and what representations have been made by the Ceylonese Council, or by private organisations, respecting the food situation in Ceylon?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: With regard to the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer my predecessor gave to a similar Question of his on 4th February. The Government of India are co-operating closely in arranging for supplies both now and in the future. In normal times about 30,000 tons of rice is imported into Ceylon a month, but this amount should be considerably decreased by rationing. The population of Ceylon has increased in recent years. No representations have been received from the State Council or from private organisations in the matter.

Mr. Sorensen: May we take it that the Minister is satisfied that adequate rice supplies exist for some time to come?

Mr. Macmillan: My Noble Friend could never be satisfied, with the many dangers which beset us, but the hon. Member may be satisfied that we are pursuing with the greatest possible urgency the problem raised in the Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR TRANSPORT.

HOLIDAY TRAVEL.

Major Lyons: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War


Transport whether, in view of the congested condition of railway travel, the need to prevent all unnecessary journeys and the restrictions on tyres and petrol, he will make a statement in connection with the avoidance of holiday travel and the limitation of services, so that plans may be known as early as possible, essential journeys safeguarded and unnecessary expenditure prevented?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): The question of holiday travel is engaging my close attention. My Noble Friend, in his broadcast last Sunday, has explained the arrangements which the Government think it desirable to make in the immediate future for dealing with the Easter problem. But for the reasons stated in his Question by my hon. and gallant Friend, drastic economy will be required throughout the coining months in the use of transport for any purposes not connected with the war effort of the nation. While, therefore, the Government are anxious that all war workers should have one week's holiday during the coming summer, it will not be possible to provide facilities for long-distance holiday travel. It is, therefore, desirable that industrial and other enterprises should arrange to stagger their holidays as much as possible, and it is hoped that many people will spend their holidays either in the neighbourhood of their homes or in walking or cycling.

Major Lyons: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind, with reference to the vital need for stopping unnecessary travel, that when such an appeal has been made on previous occasions it has been met by an extensive programme of special trains arranged for the holidays? Will he take the necessary steps to see that what he said is in fact enforced and that no such facilities are allowed by the railway companies for the forthcoming holiday period?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The policy that has been adopted is that there shall be no special trains for holiday traffic and that at all times as much of the available transport as possible shall be reserved for Government servants, members of the Armed Forces and those engaged in direct war production.

Sir H. Williams: As about 90 per cent. of the people who take long distance

journeys do not pay their own fares, will the hon. Gentleman have an inquiry as to the extent to which those journeys are necessary?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That matter is very closely controlled by my Department. All Government Departments receive strict instructions concerning the travel of their own officials and those working for them.

Sir H. Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some officials have sleepers on Friday and Sunday nights to go home and back?

Mr. Noel-Baker: There is a later Question on that point, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will listen to what I say.

SERVICE PERSONNEL (ACCOMMODATION, SWINDON STATION).

Mr. Wakefield: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that members of His Majesty's Services frequently have to wait several hours for train connections during the night at Swindon Junction Railway Station; that waiting and rest accommodation at or near the station is inadequate; and what steps does he propose to take to remedy this position?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the unsatisfactory conditions to which my hon. friend has called attention. I am glad to inform him that the Army welfare department is now constructing a new rest room for Service personnel on Swindon Station, and I trust that a considerable improvement will result.

Mr. Wakefield: May I thank the Minister for his reply and ask whether he is aware that this step will cause great satisfaction among troops who have to change and wait for many hours at the station?

Viscountess Astor: Could not the people of Swindon have done it for themselves?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I ought to make it plain that the Great Western Railway have made great efforts to provide this improvement. They have put at the disposal of the Y.M.C.A. a large part of their restaurant and certain room space, but the Y.M.C.A. have not been able to find the staff during the night, and, there-


fore, the troops have been without anywhere to go. The real responsibility for this lies with the welfare department of the War Office, who are constructing new rest rooms. They have been impeded by a shortage of timber, and we are endeavouring to speed up the supply.

Viscountess Astor: Cannot the Minister get the military authorities to lend men for the night? That is what we have done at Plymouth, and it is very satisfactory.

RAILWAY SLEEPING BERTHS (OFFICIALS).

Mr. Liddall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he will make inquiries as to the number of sleepers provided each week-end to enable men holding temporary positions in Government Departments to travel from London to their homes on Friday nights, and return to London from their homes on Sunday nights?

Mr. Noel-Baker: All Government Departments have received a standing instruction that sleeping berths can be reserved by the Ministry of War Transport only for officials who are obliged to travel by night on business of national importance. I have no reason to suppose that this rule is being disregarded. I would, however, remind my hon. Friend that persons not eligible for reservations by my Department are entitled, like any other members of the public, to reserve surplus berths, if any are available, through the railway companies.

Major Lyons: Will the hon. Gentleman satisfy himself as to the business of national importance for which so many sleepers are taken on Friday and Sunday nights?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is a matter which is constantly engaging my attention, but what I need are facts. If my hon. and gallant Friend will supply me with specific cases of abuse, I will have them looked into.

Sir H. Williams: I shall be very glad to oblige.

MERCHANT NAVY (POST-WAR CONDITIONS).

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Parliamentary Secretary

to the Ministry of War Transport what arrangements he has in view to ensure post-war security of employment, adequate wages and superannuation benefits for officers and men of the Merchant Navy?

Mr. Noel-Baker: These vitally important questions are at present under consideration by the representatives of the owners and those of the officers and men in the National Maritime Board. My Noble Friend has asked the Board to bring their discussions to the stage of definite proposals as soon as possible.

Sir T. Moore: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that these are the most practical methods of acknowledging our indebtedness to this very gallant service?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It is the aim of the Government that the Mercantile Marine shall be maintained after the war in adequate strength and full efficiency. An essential part of what the Government mean by efficiency is that the best obtainable conditions shall be provided for the officers and men who are serving the country so well.

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (LABOUR PARTY'S REPORT).

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Information why the Labour party's Interim Report on Post-War Reconstruction, which has created public interest and has been referred to widely in the Press, was ignored in the broadcast bulletins?

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): I am informed by the Governors of the B.B.C. that the report was not mentioned in the news bulletins at the time of publication because it was described as an interim document issued prior to discussions at regional conferences and at the Annual Conference of the Labour party. I am told that on further consideration the Corporation have come to the conclusion that a reference to the report ought not to have been omitted from the current news and have asked the secretary of the party to accept their assurances that the omission was made in all good faith.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

PRIVATE ENTERPRISE (PROFIT MOTIVE).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that production is suffering because the workers are of opinion that privately-owned concerns will not go all out unless they are sure of profits; and will he make it clear that the Government intend to take over any business proved to have behaved in this manner?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): If there are any cases of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers, I would make it clear that the Government would not hesitate to make full use of the powers conferred upon them by Defence Regulations, including, if necessary, the taking over of the business, if they were satisfied that production was unsatisfactory for reasons within the control of the management.

Mr. Tinker: I am glad that statement is made, because there is no doubt that work is interfered with by private owners not going all out, and unless something is done the Government will not get a 100 per cent. effort.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply will give great satisfaction to the workers, against whom so many allegations are being made? Can the number of private firms that have been controlled be made known?

Mr. Attlee: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question down.

Mr. Simmonds: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the number of private firms who would be animated thus is negligible?

Mr. Attlee: The number of people among both masters and men who are not pulling their weight in the war effort is very small.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an atmosphere throughout the shipbuilding and engineering shops that the employers are not playing the game? Will he make inquiries, because it is what is at the root of the trouble and of all the insinuations that come across the Floor of this House about the workers not putting their backs into it. They certainly are

not putting their backs into it, and that is one of the reasons—they, like the employers, are wondering what will happen after the war.

Mr. Attlee: Perhaps my hon. Friend will consult with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, who has made a tour of the shipbuilding yards, and have a talk with him on the subject.

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (STAFF.)

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that some thousands of employees of the British Broadcasting Corporation are not adequately serving the country; and whether he will give consideration to a proposal for the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate the expenditure of money and man-power by the British Broadcasting Corporation?

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir. His Majesty's Government regard the work done by the B.B.C. as of great national importance and have asked the Corporation to undertake a steady expansion of their services. The question of reservation of B.B.C. staff from military service has been considered by Lord Kennet's Committee and in order to facilitate the release of those members of staff who are not essential, the age of reservation of male administrative staff has recently been raised from 3o to 35. I would moreover refer to the recent appointment by the Governors of the B.B.C. of Mr. Robert Foot as Joint Director-General, to take chief executive control of the administrative and financial aspects of the Corporation's services under war-time conditions with the object of securing the most economical use of money and man-power.

Mr. Edwards: Is my right hon. Friend aware there is great doubt whether the many thousands of people in this organisation are really giving value for their money? They are spending untold millions of pounds, and is it not time that the House had an opportunity of ascertaining the facts?

Captain Plugge: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that these thousands of emplayees are giving of their very best in one of the most vital weapons of the war and in view of the fact that every hour of efficient broadcasting saves thousands


of British lives by shortening the war, will he consult with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Information in order to study in what way this vital arm can be extended?

Mr. Attlee: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take note of that.

PRODUCTION (REGIONAL ORGANISATION).

Mr. Hammersley: asked the Minister of State whether the Committee appointed to review and advise on the organisation of production in the regions will report to him?

Mr. Attlee: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply: Yes, Sir.

MINISTER OF STATE (FUNCTIONS).

Mr. Hammersley: asked the Prime Minister whether he intends the Minister of State to have a technical staff to survey and progress the whole field of war production?

Mr. Higgs: asked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to re-issue the White Paper on Office of the Minister of Production?

Mr. Attlee: I hope that it will be possible to make a full statement on the scope of the functions of the Minister of State shortly.

Mr. Hammersley: What are we to understand by "shortly"? Does it mean in the course of a few days or a few weeks?

Mr. Attlee: I cannot define it exactly. It means "very shortly."

Mr. Shinwell: Does the statement mean that the new Minister of Production will make a statement himself so that we might discuss it?

Mr. Attlee: I cannot say offhand, but I will consult with my hon. Friend.

Sir H. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman holding a job which has not yet been defined?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES.

LEAVE.

Sir John Mellor: asked the Prime Minister whether, for the greater con-

venience of all concerned and to economise in transport, an option will be given to officers and men of the Forces, whenever operational conditions permit, to have longer periods of leave at correspondingly longer intervals?

Mr. Attlee: I understand such option has already been made available to officers and men in the Army and to the ground staff of the Royal Air Force. As my hon. Friend is aware, sea-going conditions are not comparable, for seagoing personnel must take their leave when they can.

UNSKILLED WORK.

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Government are paying high salaries for unskilled work in the Fighting Services and, in one case of which he has been given information, £1,000 per annum for ordinary clerical work; and what steps have been taken to compel the Services to grade their men according to their ability?

Mr. Attlee: The three Services in their own interest make every effort to grade men according to their abilities. It is not correct to describe this payment as "for ordinary clerical work." It is the balance of the man's civil pay.

Mr. Edwards: Is it not a misuse of a man's capacity to be put on unskilled work if he is capable of earning such a high salary in civil life?

Mr. Bellenger: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of employing Sir William Beveridge to inquire into the use of man-power in the Services and take up questions of this sort which are not by any means isolated?

Mr. Attlee: I will bring that point to the notice of my right hon. Friend.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Prime Minister whether he will instruct Ministers to terminate the present practice of replying to Questions by reference to some previous answers, which frequently debars a supplementary question of possibly national importance being asked?

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): No, Sir My right hon. Friend is not prepared to adopt my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

Sir T. Moore: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that it is not possible for Members of Parliament to remember every previous answer to every previous Question, and would it not be more simple for Ministers to answer the Questions on the Paper?

Sir S. Cripps: I think it would be a waste both of time and paper to do that.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

CHEESE RATION (RAILWAY SHUNTERS).

Mr. Wakefield: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will consider allocating the same ration of cheese to railway shunters as that given to engine drivers, firemen, signalmen and other heavy workers, in view of the long hours of work which railway shunters undertake without canteen facilities?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): The case of the shunters is not considered to justify the grant of the special ration of cheese as it is felt that the provision of other feeding facilities should not be impracticable.

HOUSEHOLD STOCKS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the concern caused by a recent prosecution over hoarding of food; and will he make it known what is the position in the household as to the stock of food they are entitled to hold in reserve without laying themselves open to prosecution?

Major Lloyd George: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. As to the second part, it is an offence under the Food (Acquisition of Excessive Quantities) Order for any person to acquire food in excess of the "normal quantity," which is defined as
such quantity as would be required for use in the household or establishment of that person during a period of seven days or such longer period as ought fairly to be allowed in view of the existence of any special circumstances.
My Department does not, in practice, prosecute cases where the excess acquired over the normal quantity is believed to be open to any doubt, but it is for a court to

determine how far the existence of special circumstances affects a particular case.

Mr. Tinker: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that it is hardly correct to say that the position is not as it has been described in my Question? There is a great questioning in the country regarding the recent prosecutions, and I should like him to be more definite regarding what stocks a householder can have without running the risk of prosecution, because this matter needs to be cleared up.

Major Lloyd George: I think there ought to be no doubt in the matter. The terms of the Order say that no person shall have in his house any food which exceeds the normal quantity required by him, and the normal quantity is defined as being the quantity for a period of seven days. Under special circumstances it may be a little more. For instance, in the case of a person living in a remote part of the country, obviously it should be greater, but in any case it is for a court to decide the point.

Sir Leonard Lyle: Was it not the deliberate policy of the Government in the past to encourage the acquisition of food stocks by householders, and is the Minister aware that people are entirely bewildered when they find that what they were told a few months ago was a patriotic and justifiable thing to do is now regarded as being a criminal offence?

Major Lloyd George: I cannot possibly accept my hon. Friend's interpretation of the situation. This Order was issued on 31st August, 1939, and if members of the public were not aware of it, it has been made very clear to them since. The fact is that there has not been a large number of prosecutions in these cases. The Order states quite definitely what is the period. A normal period is interpreted as being seven days, and there should be no doubt in the minds of any members of the public of what hoarding means after that.

Mr. Tinker: In view of the uncertainty of the position, I beg to give notice that I shall take an early opportunity of raising this matter.

EGGS (IMPORTS).

Sir L. Lyle: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food on


what scale eggs are still being imported from America in preference to chicken food as compared with a year ago?

Major Lloyd George: Owing to the present shipping position, the importation of eggs in shell from America has been temporarily suspended.

EMPTY MILK BOTTLES (RETURN).

Mr. W. H. Green: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the loss to retailers of milk, occasioned by the breakage or failure to return empty bottles, is approximately £1,000,000 per annum; and whether, to avoid this loss of money, material and labour, he will, in consultation with the retailers of milk, take steps to lessen if not completely to avoid this loss, either by way of a deposit on bottles, charged to the consumer, or the refusal to supply milk unless the empty bottle is returned?

Major Lloyd George: The wastage due to careless handling and misuse of milk bottles has been very fully discussed with the retail milk trade, and appeals have been made to the public by the Press and the B.B.C. stressing the need for keeping milk bottles in effective circulation. It has not been found possible to place a legal obligation upon consumers to return empty bottles, but if the retail trade desire to discuss the suggestions made by my hon. Friend, I should be glad to arrange for the necessary consultation.

Mr. Green: Does not the Minister think this enormous wastage creates a sufficiently serious position to warrant his Department pursuing the matter further?

Major Lloyd George: I agree with my hon. Friend, and we are prepared to discuss the matter further with the trade. We have already gone into the question very carefully, but there are very great difficulties, and we shall be only too happy if we are able to overcome them.

MILK (AGED PERSONS).

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will consider the desirability of allowing an additional supply of milk to persons over the age of 70 years?

Major Lloyd George: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) on 19th November last.

PROSECUTION, AYLESBURY.

Sir J. Lucas: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Peter Elstob, convicted for selling poultry food consisting of 100 per cent. sawdust, whose prison sentence was remitted at Aylesbury Quarter Sessions and a fine of £20 substituted; and will steps be taken in future, by withholding licences or otherwise, to prevent any repetition of such illegalities?

Major Lloyd George: I am aware of this case, in which both partners of the firm concerned were sentenced to two months' hard labour. The sentence to imprisonment of Elstob only has been remitted and the maximum fine of £20 substituted: the other sentence stands. The firm is not licensed to sell feeding-stuffs, trade in which is prohibited except under licence.

BLACK MARKET OFFENCES (NEW DEFENCE REGULATIONS).

Mr. Speaker: Question No. 87 upon the Order Paper, standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for East Leicester (Major Lyons), has not been reached, but as it deals with a subject which is of considerable interest to the House, perhaps hon. Members will allow the Minister to make a statement upon it.

[To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he is aware that on the London Midland and Scottish Railway substantial losses and thefts are helping to sustain the black market; and whether, in view of public anger at the intensity of this evil and its effect on wartime morale, he will forthwith take the necessary steps for intensification of penalties.]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I had intended, as you have said, Mr. Speaker, in answer to Question No. 87, to make a statement on the subject of black market offences. In view of the importance of the subject and the interest which the House and the country take in it, I am grateful to you and to the House for permitting me to make the statement now.
Under the existing Defence Regulations the maximum term of imprisonment which can be imposed for contravening


orders for the control of essential supplies is three months on summary conviction and two years on indictment. For deliberate and calculated efforts to evade for selfish ends orders designed to secure an equitable distribution of controlled articles, these penalties are inadequate. It has been decided, therefore, to introduce new Defence Regulations raising the maximum term to twelve months' imprisonment on summary conviction and to fourteen years' penal servitude on indictment. In the pursuit of these offenders there is close co-operation between the police and the Departments concerned with the control of food and other articles. As is shown by the number of prosecutions, active measures are being taken for the detection of offences. Continuous observation will, however, be maintained with a view to strengthening further the machinery and making such improvements as experience may suggest.
The offences to which the new Regulations will apply will vary in gravity. Many of them can properly be dealt with by the summary courts empowered as they will be to impose as much as a year's imprisonment. It would be a great mistake to undervalue the work of the magistrates who deal with the great majority of offences against the Defence Regulations as well as against the ordinary law. To their public spirit and efficiency in administering justice we must continue to look for assistance in dealing with a large proportion of offenders. But in order to ensure that there shall be no failure to commit to the higher courts the graver cases calling for greater penalties than the summary courts are authorised to impose, the new Regulations will contain a provision enabling the prosecuting authority to require such cases to be committed for trial on indictment. There will also be a provision enabling the Director of Public Prosecutions to require particular cases to be committed to Assizes rather than to quarter Sessions.
Special consideration has been given to the question of fines. Even when sentences of imprisonment or penal servitude are imposed—and for deterrent purposes it is most important that full use should be made of such sentences—the offender must not be allowed to retain his illicit gains. Whatever other punishment may be imposed upon him, he ought to forfeit any profit he may have made by contravening the law. The new Regulations

will therefore require that, in the absence of special circumstances, the offender must be fined a sum equal to the benefit which in the opinion of the court he has derived from his offence. This is the least which ought to be done. The maximum fine which may be imposed will not be limited to the amount of the profit. It may be higher, as for example under the existing provisions in Defence Regulation 55 authorising a fine equal to three times the price at which the offender has offered to sell or buy the goods in question: and the courts will, I am sure, recognise that in appropriate cases the fine should be larger than the profit and that sentences of imprisonment or penal servitude should be imposed as well as fines.
The new Regulations will also contain a provision for dealing with the man behind the scenes who, though he organises and profits from illicit transactions, keeps so far in the background that it has hitherto been difficult or impracticable to bring him to justice. Although it may be known that such a man has taken a large share of the profit it has frequently been impossible to bring home to him guilty knowledge or active complicity. In future the onus will be placed on these shy profiteers of explaining their conduct to a court. There will be a provision in the Regulations that any person who receives a commission or valuable consideration in respect of an illicit transaction in controlled articles shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves that he did not know and had no reason to believe that the transaction was illicit.
As many of these illicit transactions start with thefts, the new Regulations will not be confined to contraventions of orders made under Defence Regulation 55, but will also apply to any cases of stealing or receiving controlled articles. Theft of the nation's food or other necessaries is more than theft: it is a crime against the State and must be rigorously punished.
These new provisions have been very carefully devised in consultation with the Departments concerned with the administration of orders for the control of essential commodities and with those who have had experience of the proceedings in the criminal courts. If further powers are needed, they will be taken, but the Defence Regulation now proposed will, I am confident, provide potent weapons for a vigorous offensive against persons who,


regardless of the national interest and of the principle that food and other essential articles must be fairly shared, are seeking to exploit the war situation for private gain. The courts can, I feel sure, be relied upon to make effective use of the new powers and to administer them with a due sense of the gravity of the evil at which they are aimed.

Major Lyons: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to say that there is no doubt that provisions of this nature will meet with far-reaching appreciation throughout the country, in the attempt to rid the nation of this evil? Can he give the date when the proposed Regulations will become effective?

Mr. Morrison: I am not quite sure of the actual date, but it will be almost at once; a matter of days, I hope.

Mr. Burke: How will these fines work out?

Mr. Morrison: Care has been taken to give the courts ample powers in that matter. Supposing the offender to have been convicted of selling or buying goods worth £5,000 and to have made a profit of, say, £1,000, then he must be fined £1,000, and may be fined £16,000, that is to say, three times the value of the goods, plus the profit. That is the principle upon which these proposals proceed. There is the further case that if, on indictment, a man is convicted of selling goods worth, say, £100, and of making a profit of £20, the court will not be limited to a fine of £320; the court will be able to impose any fine it thinks appropriate, up to a limit.

Mr. Crowder: If any person who has been convicted has also been naturalised, will the court have power to revoke the naturalisation order?

Mr. Morrison: There is the existing law upon that point, but everything depends upon the nature of the offence and the date of the naturalisation. There is the existing law, and there is a committee to deal with such cases.

Mr. Crowder: They have power?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, but I will not say that the power is sufficiently wide neces-

sarily to pick up every one of the cases of these men.

Sir H. Williams: While I realise the vital importance of getting at the men who are behind these rackets, will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that this power of compelling a man to prove his innocence will be properly safeguarded, because it is the most dangerous innovation of the rights of the citizen that has been proposed since the war started?

Mr. Morrison: Every care will be taken on that point, but some of these people cannot be got because evidence cannot be proved against them, although we know they are guilty. I hope that the House will be willing to run some small degree of risk in this matter, in order that we may be sure that the courts and prosecuting authorities have an adequate chance to get these people.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: While the announcement made by my right hon. Friend will undoubtedly be a great stimulus to the nation in exterminating these rats in the black market, may I ask whether he will concentrate the whole of the Special Branch and many of the C.I.D. from Scotland Yard upon exterminating those people who operate the black market in many of the big hotels in the West End of London?

Mr. Morrison: I must remind my hon. Friend that these rather specialised forces of the Metropolitan Police have other things to do and other people to keep observation upon; but I can assure him that I have given instructions to the Metropolitan Police, and I will request- all chief constables, to give to the authorities concerned every help in their power.

Mr. Goldie: Is there any power to order an offender to pay the cost of the prosecution?

Mr. Watkins: As this Question is based on the railway situation, may I assure my right hon. Friend that the railway trade unions will welcome his announcement and that he can count on their support in stamping out this evil on the railways?

Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for that assurance.

INDIA (LORD PRIVY SEAL'S MISSION).

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): The crisis in the affairs of India arising out of the Japanese advance has made us wish to rally all the forces of Indian life, to guard their land from the menace of the invader. In August, 1940, a full statement was made about the aims and policy we are pursuing in India. This amounted, in short, to a promise that, as soon as possible after the war, India should attain Dominion status, in full freedom and equality with this country and the other Dominions, under a Constitution to be framed by Indians, by agreement among themselves and acceptable to the main elements in Indian national life. This was, of course, subject to the fulfilment of our obligations for the protection of minorities, including the depressed classes, and of our treaty obligations to the Indian States, and to the settlement of certain lesser matters arising out of our long association with the fortunes of the Indian sub-continent.
However, Sir, in order to clothe these general declarations with precision and to convince ail classes, races and creeds in India of our sincere resolve, the War Cabinet have agreed unitedly upon conclusions for present and future action which, if accepted by India as a whole, would avoid the alternative dangers either that the resistance of a powerful minority might impose an indefinite veto upon the wishes of the majority or that a majority decision might be taken which would be resisted to a point destructive of internal harmony and fatal to the setting-up of a new Constitution. We had thought of setting forth immediately the terms of this attempt, by a constructive British contribution, to aid India in the realisation of full self-government; we are, however, apprehensive that to make a public announcement at such a moment as this might do more harm than good. We must first assure ourselves that our scheme would win a reasonable and practical measure of acceptance, and thus promote the concentration of all Indian thought and energies upon the defence of the native soil. We should ill serve the common cause if we made a declaration which would be rejected by essential elements in the Indian world, and which provoked fierce constitutional and communal disputes at a moment when the enemy is at the gates of India.
Accordingly, we propose to send a member of the War Cabinet to India, to satisfy himself upon the spot, by personal consultation, that the conclusions upon which we are agreed, and which we believe represent a just and final solution, will achieve their purpose. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House has volunteered to undertake this task. He carries with him the full confidence of His Majesty's Government, and he will strive in their name to procure the necessary measure of assent, not only from the Hindu majority, but also from those great minorities, amongst which the Moslems are the most numerous and on many grounds preeminent.
The Lord Privy Seal will, at the same time, consult with the Viceroy and the Commander-in-Chief upon the military situation, bearing always in mind the paramount responsibility of His Majesty's Government by every means in their power to shield the peoples of India from the perils which now beset them. We must remember that India has a great part to play in the world's struggle for freedom and that her helping hand must be extended in loyal comradeship to the valiant Chinese people, who have fought alone so long. We must remember also that India is one of the bases from which the strongest counter-blows must be struck at the advance of tyranny and aggression.
My right hon. Friend will set out as soon as convenient and suitable arrangements can be made. I am sure he will command in his task the heartfelt good wishes of all parts of the House and that, meanwhile, no word will be spoken or Debates be held, here or in India, which would add to the burden he has assumed in his mission, or lessen the prospects of a good result. During my right hon. and learned Friend's absence from this House, his duties as Leader will be discharged by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The House will have listened with deep interest to the statement which has fallen from the lips of the Prime Minister, and I wish to express, on my own behalf and on behalf of my hon. Friends with whom I am associated, our agreement with him that it would be very injudicious at this juncture to have an immediate discussion on the step which the Government are taking.


We would like to read the statement he has made and to reserve our judgment until we have done so.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask my right hon. Friend, on a point of elucidation—

Sir Herbert Williams: On a point of Order. As there is no Motion before the House and as one right hon. Gentleman has spoken and two others have risen to speak, would it not be better to regularise the situation?

Mr. Speaker: I think I can deal with the situation.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the consultations or discussions for which my right hon. and learned Friend will be responsible in India will proceed on the basis of the Government declaration of August, 1940, or will the matter be left quite open?

The Prime Minister: The discussions will proceed upon the basis of the new conclusion at which the War Cabinet have unitedly arrived.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Lord Privy Seal will, himself, have contact with all sections of Indian opinion, including the representatives of the Indian States?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think that is a matter which we can leave to my right hon. and learned Friend in the full discharge of his duty.

Sir Percy Harris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great part of the House wish the Lord Privy Seal good will in his tremendous task; and that he has the confidence of the vast majority of hon. Members?

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Francis George Bowles, Esquire, for the County of Warwick (Nuneaton Division).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered:
That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, the Reports of Supplementary Estimates, 1941, may be taken before the hour appointed for the interruption of Business; that the Proceedings on the Reports from the Committee of Supply of 26th February, 19th February and 4th March may be taken after the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, and that the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this clay's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Eden.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY.]

Orders of the Day — REPORT [26th February].

Resolutions reported;

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1942.

NUMBERS.

1. "That such numbers of Officers, Seamen, Boys and Royal Marines and of Royal Marine Police, as His Majesty may deem necessary, be borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine Divisions, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943."

WAGES, &C., OF OFFICERS AND MEN OF THE ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL MARINES, AND OF CERTAIN OTHER PERSONNEL SERVING WITH THE FLEET.

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, &c., of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and of certain other personnel serving with the Fleet, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943."

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1941.

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year."

Schedule



Sums not exceeding


Supply Grants
Appropriations in aid


Vote.
£
£


1. Wages, &amp;c, of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and of certain other personnel serving with the fleet
10
16,000,000

First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Ammon: There are one or two points in connection with this Vote to which I wish to draw the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty. They are particularly concerned with the training of personnel and the selection of officers. These matters have been brought to my notice by a document which I have just received. It is a document drawn up by a group of young officers who are keen on these matters, and I propose to give a hint or two of the views which they express, for the information both of the public and of the House, and, with my right hon. Friend's consent, I will then hand the document over to him in order that it may receive the attention of himself and his advisers. This document complains that to a large extent the efficiency of the Navy is hampered by a slavish adherence to the traditions of Nelson's day. Among other comments which its authors make, they suggest that the training of personnel, which is now entrusted to retired officers or pensioned instructors, should be given to more active and vigorous persons. They also ask that more attention should be given to training in gunnery, which they consider is very badly neglected. They complain that much of the training has no relation to the modern conditions in the Navy and that a lot of time is spent on such things as making hitches and splices, and so on—things which are not of much use in the modern Navy, however valuable they may have been in the days of sail. In short, they complain that much of the present syllabus for the training of personnel has no relation to modern naval conditions.
They suggest, in view of the possibilities of invasion and the use of the Navy in that connection, that a certain amount of attention should be given to land fighting. They also ask that attention should be given to the abolition of a good deal of very harmful and unnecessary ceremonial which is still adhered to in the Royal Naval establishments. They claim that the time so employed could be devoted to instructional courses, which, spread over a 10-weeks course, would give them no less than another 10 or 13 hours which could be spent on very necessary instruction.
With regard to the training of officers, I ask the indulgence of the House while I read an extract, although at the same time I should like my right hon. Friend to realise that I am in no way detracting from the value of the great service which he did when he introduced promotion from the lower deck. This is what these young officers say as to the effect of the new scheme:
The recruitment of officers now is entirely from the lower deck with the exception of a few specialists, nevertheless it is by no means satisfactory, not only that the wrong type of man is often selected but that the right type is far more often overlooked. A certain number of regular officers are still being produced from places like Dartmouth, which it is almost impossible to enter without monied parents. The selection is made as follows. Whilst the trainee is a rating he is first seen by a C.W.1 board which recommend him for a commission. After that he is watched at sea, and if recommended by his captain he goes before a preliminary and then a final Admiralty selection board. If passed he goes to the "King Alfred." The chief criticism of the system lies in the method of selection.

Sir Percy Harris: Is the hon. Gentleman reading from a letter, or what?

Mr. Ammon: I am reading from a scheme sent to me by a number of young officers:
Every trainee fills in a questionnaire which is examined. Men with suitable educational qualifications are noted and watched. The snag is that no one who has not at least had a secondary school education is even considered, no matter what brilliance he may show while at the training establishment, thus many who might make very brilliant officers are overlooked. The official excuse for this is that without a secondary school education men cannot master the officers' training course. This, speaking from personal experience, is not true. Any intelligent man can easily master the course, while no matter how high his educational qualifications, unless they are linked with intelligence a good officer does not result. Particularly important is the understanding


which an officer has of his men, and the present insistence on education results in a gap between officers and ratings. There is no doubt that the system as at present worked definitely prevents the average rating from ever being even considered for an examination.
I do not know how much truth there is in this, but coming from the source it does, I think it would be worth while for my right hon. Friend to consider it in connection with the scheme he has already introduced, with a view to finding out whether there are some points which might be reconsidered to make it more effective and give a larger measure of satisfaction, while securing a wider range of selection for these officers.

Sir Irving Albery: I rather understood my hon. Friend to say that he does not put these views forward as his own considered opinion, and that he is not taking personal responsibility for them, and in those circumstances it is important that the House should know more definitely whether these are the views of one or two young officers or whether he himself accepts responsibility for them.

Mr. Ammon: I take personal responsibility, although, as I said, I have been more or less informed and inspired by a group of young officers. It is a thing which is quite usually done; the hon. Member himself does it in the House regarding any matter of which he may have some knowledge. So far as that goes, I am responsible for anything I say, and so far as it may be helpful to the First Lord, I propose to hand over to him such information as I may have and any criticisms in connection with the training of personnel and the training of officers, in order that he may be better enabled to discuss the questions which I put before him.

Sir P. Harris: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, with regard to the suggestion that the best types are not always selected, I should like to give a special testimony based on the experience of two visits in connection with the magnificent work done by the "King Alfred." It is one of the best bits of work the Admiralty have done during the last two years. Far from the impression having been conveyed to me that there was any undue inquiry into the origin of trainees or their schooling, I formed the contrary opinion, and I believe that in the recruitment of temporary officers from

the lower deck the Admiralty has set a magnificent example which the other two Service might very well follow. Obviously, in an enormous expansion such as has taken place, there may be exceptions, and men of ability may have been overlooked, but I would like to say, from what I have heard from men in the Service who joined up before or since the outbreak of war, that the regular officers received the temporary officers with open arms, although they have a different badge—which I think is unfortunate; it is a pity they do not follow the example of the other two Services—and the experience of temporary officers is that they are received in every way as equals. They are given every encouragement, and on the whole the feeling of the lower deck, especially among men who joined only for war service; is that they have had a square deal. There is just one other matter which my hon. Friend raised.

Mr. Ammon: If the right hon. Baronet is suggesting that I complained that the promotion scheme from the lower deck is a failure, he is wrong. I suggest how it can be improved.

Sir P. Harris: My hon. Friend gave me the impression that there was a good deal of grousing on the lower deck. If that is so, he is quite right to raise the matter, but I have seen another side of the story, and I think it just as well to raise that also. When the hon. Gentleman interrupted me, I was just going to say that if my hon. Friend had concentrated on one case in which there is a need for reform he would have been doing a great service, and that is the question of the status of engineering officers. I know my right hon. Friend must be conscious of a grievance among engineering officers to the effect that they are regarded somehow as an inferior grade. It was largely due to the great work of Admiral Fisher when he was First Sea Lord that higher ranks were made open to them and equality in principle given. I think that far greater use should be made of the skill, knowledge and expert training of the engineering officers. Obviously, all the high commands must go to the executive officers. But I have heard that parents are saying to their boys, "Do not become trained for an engineer officer, because all the higher posts will be denied to you. You will have to do harder work than


the others, but, of course, you can never reach the top." Obviously that is inevitable. Command of the Fleet must go to the executive officers. But, as I said the other day, when it comes to any appointments in dockyards or administrative posts which largely imply technical training, equality at least should be given to the engineer officers. I believe that the organisation of the Admiralty would gain, and I think it would be to the general advantage of the Navy.
I have just looked through the long list of members of the Board of Admiralty. This has very much expanded of recent years. I would suggest that when there is a suitable vacancy, if there is an engineer admiral available with experience and training, consideration should be given to his appointment. The War Office at one time actually put on the Army Council an engineer admiral. There is a man in the Ministry of Supply, a very distinguished engineer officer. I believe it would be very much appreciated in the Service if more recognition were given to the engineering side of the Navy's work.
I wish now to refer to Dartmouth. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) seemed rather to imply that entry at Dartmouth was still confined to well-to-do people. I thought the right hon. Gentleman had made a great change there, that boys from secondary schools were now to have a square deal, that it was going to be democratised. Of course, it will take time. That ought to be acknowledged and made clear, because that reform would go a long way to meet the criticisms of the hon. Member.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I wish to raise a small point. I put a Question to-day and received an Answer which really gave us a great surprise. In the registration of youths which is taking place it has been my experience in the last fortnight that a large number of boys have said that they wanted to join the Navy. I have had the humiliating experience of having to tell them that there was no unit for them to join. I brought this matter to the notice of my right hon. Friend personally about six weeks ago, and I went to see the officials concerned. Having spent two of the most happy years of my life in the post to which the hon. and gallant Member for Widnes (Capt.

Pilkington) has been appointed, on which I congratulate him, I have a great interest to see that the Navy gets its share of the boys who are now being registered. It is really a heart-breaking thing to ask people to apply and then have no unit for them to join. It is bad for morale. I hope the First Lord will see that nothing shall hold up this matter in the future and that some assurance will be given about it.

Mr. Lipson: I wish to raise one point upon which I will not detain the House for very long, but it is a matter of considerable importance to retired officers. It is a matter which really affects all the three Services, but I thought that I could most appropriately raise it on the Admiralty Vote, because one looks to the Senior Service to look after its officers, present and past. I hope that in this matter, as in others, they will set an example to the other Services. In 1931, as a result of the economy campaign, a reduction was made in the pay of retired officers. That reduction was partially restored on 1st July, 1934, and in 1935 the retired pay was consolidated on a basis of a 9½ per cent. cut on the standard rate. I wish to appeal to my right hon. Friend the First Lord to consider whether that 9½ per cent. cut may not now be restored and the standard rate brought back once more. The amount of money involved for the Admiralty, I was told in answer to a Question, would be £157,000, a comparatively small sum for the nation, but the present position creates one of considerable hardship for the individual officers concerned.

Mr. Speaker: There is a special Vote dealing with this matter, and the hon. Member will not be able to raise it on the Vote before the House.

Mr. Lipson: I thank you, Sir. Shall I have an opportunity of raising it later to-day?

Mr. Speaker: That Vote will not come before the House to-day.

Mr. Lipson: I am sorry to find that I am not in Order, but perhaps I have said enough to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the matter.

Mr. Cocks: I wish to say a word on what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) said about engineer


officers in the Navy. It has been brought up in Debates on the Navy Estimates year after year for the last 10 years, and has been supported from all parts of the House. Why should we get soft and soothing answers, and yet nothing is done? There are two points I wish to put to the First Lord of the Admiralty. We do not expect engineer admirals to be put in command of fleets, but surely there is no reason that they should not be appointed to be admiral superintendents at dockyards such as Devonport. Why cannot they be given some position such as that? Why should the engineer branch of the Navy not be represented on the Board of Admiralty? We have asked for that year after year, but nothing has been done. If we had geniuses like Lord Fisher as First Sea Lord at the Admiralty, it would be done. I ask the First Lord to consider this matter to see whether something cannot be done.

Mr. Kirkwood: I wish to say a word on this matter, being an engineer born and bred. This has been a vexed question with our union for over 40 years. The engineer is still treated in the Navy in the same fashion as when engineers were not in existence, in the days of Nelson. There has been no change made so far as the officers are concerned. There has been a great revolution taking place, particularly in our day and generation, so far as the engineer is concerned. A battleship, particularly, with everything connected with the Navy in that line, is all machinery. Just as in the coalfields, everything is becoming mechanised. The engineer is the very foundation of the Navy to-day. But no change has been made in the position of the personnel in the Navy. In every industry the engineer is given a chance, because engineering is the foundation of industry. I am not saying this because I am an engineer, but this is an engineering age. The Navy, however, is the most conservative institution in this country. It does whatever it jolly well likes, and we need to take a strong hand with it. It is not the perfect institution that it is supposed to be. This is one of the facts which goes to prove that. The engineer has never been given his proper place in the Navy. I do not know whether you will let me touch upon another matter, Sir, which is very serious? That is the position of the Admiralty in relation to shipbuilding.

Mr. Speaker: I must warn the hon. Member that there is a separate Vote for shipbuilding, repairs and maintenance, both for the Navy and for the Merchant Service.

Mr. Kirkwood: With all respect, cannot I raise this matter, seeing that I can prove to the House that the shipbuilding industry in this country is dominated by the Admiralty? Surely, that being the case, I can raise the question of shipbuilding, which is in a state of chaos as a result of its being dominated by the Admiralty?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot raise it on this occasion, because there is a separate Vote for it.

Mr. Kirkwood: As I asked you privately, I will ask you publicly: Can you give me any idea when we can raise this very serious question?

Mr. Speaker: On a Supply day, when that particular Vote is asked for.

Mr. Kirkwood: Then I shall have to be satisfied. I have come here primed with actual facts about the awful state of chaos, mismanagement, and misunderstanding, which arises because shipbuilding is in the hands of men who know nothing about shipbuilding, who have never worked in a shipyard, and who are giving orders to shipbuilders who have built the mightiest steamers afloat, both for the Admiralty and for private shipowners. Well, I shall just have to do the best I can. It is a shame, all the same.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): With regard to the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), it has been one of my special desires at all times when associated with the Admiralty to improve both the conditions of the personnel and their avenues of promotion and standards of training. I think I can claim to have done something in that direction. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) referred to the statement, made to-day, that there were apparently in war too many officers coming from Dartmouth into the Service who would not have been able to do that training unless their parents had been wealthy. We have revolutionised that situation. We have thrown open scholarship aid to boys not only from grant-aided secondary schools but from


preparatory schools, whose parents could not otherwise have afforded to send them for expensive training at Dartmouth College. We have already received reports on the 20 boys with scholarships from secondary State-aided schools now at the College.

Mr. Gallacher: How many from preparatory schools?

Mr. Alexander: About the same number. We want to get the best selection of the brains of our youth all over the country, and to make certain that finance does not stand in their way. I am glad to say that the reports on the first full term's work by those boys have been most encouraging, and that they show that the boys are likely to stand up well to the tasks that they will have to perform.

Mr. Gallacher: Would it not be advisable, in view of that statement, for the Admiralty to send a message to the various youth organisations, drawing their attention to the new situation which exists in connection with this training course, and to get the broadest possible basis of supply?

Mr. Alexander: The widest possible publicity has been given to it. The fact is best illustrated by the hundreds of applications which we have received for permission to sit in the examinations for scholarships. But I can assure my hon. Friend that we will examine every possible step to see that they are notified. The best avenue for getting candidates is to see that every school, of all the types eligible to send in candidates, is properly informed. With regard to the rest of the case made by my hon. Friend the member for North Camberwell, the record of achievement of those who have passed through the training provided in this war for commissioned branches from the lower deck is, I think, a sufficient tribute to the excellence of the work done. The standard which I have observed, not only from reports but from actual visits which I have paid, among Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve officers is most encouraging. Take, for example, a young man going from civilian life into training in "King Alfred" and, within 12 months

of that time, becoming a full lieutenant, and destroying perhaps with his one ship, 80 or 100 mines in the face of the enemy. That sort of achievement is a pretty good tribute to the nature of the training the Navy is giving in the war training ships and establishments. I have heard, too, from relatives of my own, who have served on the lower deck in this war and have passed through, or are passing through, the training, how well they think of the training syllabus and of the officers who have had the handling of their training. But when my hon. Friend has a widely-based case made to him from officers, we shall, of course, examine the case with great care. We want to make sure that the selection made from the lower deck under the commission warrant is of the best. It has been so successful that we are anxious not to hold up from training candidates of the lower deck, the work of whose ship has meant that they have had to go to a foreign station. Therefore, we have extended the work of the "King Alfred" to a foreign station in order that there may he wider facilities to take the inflow during the was for training for commissions.
With regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay), I am obliged to him, because of his previous knowledge of work at the Admiralty and also his experience at the Board of Education, for the consultation he has already had with me on the subject of Sea Cadets. The position has been different in the case of the Sea Cadet Corps compared with training for other Services. It has been carried out very largely in the past—and a great deal of good work has been done—by the Navy League and other voluntary associations. When the new position came to be created we had to consider the matter very carefully and see what could be done to extend the opportunity in a wider number of centres for these cadets, the arrangements for whom will now be superintended by the Admiralty. I can say to him that the arrangements for the Sea Cadet Corps are being fitted in both with the operations of the cadet corps of the other Services, and with the local education authorities, and at the same time attention has been given to the expansion of the number of units and centres. The present situation is that it is advancing rapidly, and in the case of the two centres


in which I am myself interested—in the West Riding of Yorkshire and the Tyneside—we are already making arrangements for extending units. In view of what my hon. Friend told me across the Table, I shall certainly go to the department of the Admiralty dealing with that expansion and say that the greatest possible expedition should be given to the creation of new centres or branches of the Cadet Corps so that, as far as possible, we can meet what is a very important—and from my point of view very praiseworthy and laudable—desire on the part of youth to join this great Service of ours.

Mr. Lindsay: In the case of the Air Force my right hon. Friend will remember that a well-known master, now the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield), has been put in charge, and I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider—I am casting no reflections on present appointments—appointing some reasonably young naval officer, if it is possible for him to be spared, to adapt the training to the young people. I can assure him that they are waiting, and it is pathetic to see them asking to go into these units when there is nothing available for them.

Mr. Alexander: I will certainly consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend and discuss it at once with the appropriate department. There is a very strongly held view in the House with regard to engineer-officers. I have never found in my experience at the Admiralty any desire to under-rate or under-estimate the enormous value of the services and the great technical service rendered to the Fleet by engineer officers. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) that they are not placed in quite the position he seems to think. They have promotion all the way through both from the college and the lower deck, and they reach the high flag rank of vice-admiral, so I do not think that his general complaint is quite justified. The question whether they should be given the opportunity of acting, for example, as admiral-superintendents of dockyards is a most important one. We have to remember, however, that the admiral-superintendent of a dockyard always has the advice of engineers, and moreover that he also has a great many non-technical duties to perform which are very often so well performed by naval officers. But I will go this far and say that there can be no real

professional bar to an engineer-admiral acting as a superintendent of a dockyard. The question which the right hon. Gentleman the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green put with regard to creating a seat on the Board of Admiralty for engineer officers is rather more difficult. If you are to say that the Board of Admiralty, on its naval side, should consist of a flag officer representing every section, we would have to include the medical, paymasters and so on.

Sir P. Harris: Certainly that is not my contention, nor that of those who are pressing for this. We say that if there is an able and qualified engineer-admiral, the fact that he is an engineer should not exclude him from consideration. That should not be a bar against an engineer-admiral sitting on the Board of Admiralty.

Mr. Alexander: I shall certainly take that point into consideration. When you consider the controls which have to be operated by a professional member of the Board of Admiralty, you must be certain that the person selected has had experience in all respects, not only as an engineer, of those controls.

Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes: I wish to raise a matter which greatly affects the ability of the Navy to carry out its responsibilities without placing undue risks upon naval officers and men who fly aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm from shore bases. The only torpedo aircraft which the Navy possesses is a seaborne aircraft, the Swordfish, which is six years old, a biplane, with a speed of about 90 miles per hour, and is quite outclassed by the shore-based aircraft it is likely to encounter. It was designed to perform seaborne duties, torpedo work on the open seas, but in the Mediterranean and other places the Admiralty has squadrons of Swordfish based on shore which fly within reach of the shore-based aircraft of the enemy. I received a letter only about a fortnight ago from a young officer in the Fleet Air Arm who was flying in one of these Swordfish squadrons. He says they often had to fly over the land where they met fighters which were infinitely superior, of course, to ours. They did most of time flying at night, and in moonlight in the Mediterranean the night was often as light as day, and they had suffered losses from the fighters of the enemy. He goes on to say:


Our squadron was ordered to attack shipping in an enemy harbour, and the attack had to be carried out in broad daylight. I took part in this attack, and we came out with only three aircraft out of eight, the losses all being due to the presence of enemy fighters.
He says further:
This is not a criticism of that operation. I quite realise that it was essential to the conduct of the war, and none of us had the slightest hesitation in carrying it out, but it served to show how aircraft designed for sea warfare stood rather a slender chance of survival, when opposed by shore-based fighters.
I had that letter by me when we debated the Navy Estimates. I meant to refer to it, but I had not the time. Next morning I saw in an obituary column that this young officer had lost his life in one of these attacks. I quite realise that when the Government decided, in 1937, to keep the Coastal Command under the Royal Air Force the development of torpedo shore-based aircraft would be in the hands of the Royal Air Force, but when this war started the Royal Air Force only had one type of shore-based torpedo aircraft, which, apparently, is not very efficient. I do ask my right hon. Friend to go into this matter very carefully with the Air Ministry and come to some sort of an arrangement whereby young men of the Royal Naval Air Service can fly in aircraft that are not outclassed by enemy fighters when, of necessity, they have to be based on shore within reach of the enemy. There is a young officer in this House who recently commanded one of the fighter squadrons of the Royal Naval Air Service. He told me his fighters, which were, of necessity, based on shore, were greatly inferior to the fighters of the enemy and, indeed, to those of the Royal Air Force.
Surely the First Lord should insist on the fighter squadrons of the Royal Naval Air Service, based on shore, being properly equipped with fighters that are fit to meet those of the enemy. I hope it will not be suggested that I am trying to make bad blood between officers of the Royal Air Force and the Navy. After all, they all come out of the same cradle, whether they wear dark or light blue uniforms, and I am sure that officers of the Royal Air Force sympathise greatly with those of the Navy for having to continue to fly in aircraft which are inferior to theirs and inferior to those of

the enemy. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) told the House recently how he produced torpedo aircraft 27 years ago. I have a letter, which I happened to receive a day or two ago from an officer who commanded the ship in which these aircraft were carried. It is from Lieut.-Commander L'Estrange Malone, at one time a Member of this House, who says:
On 12th August, 1915, under your inspiration and guidance the first successful attack with planes carrying torpedoes across the Bulair lines scored three hits on enemy ships. That was a great day.
Surely if the Navy had been free to develop its Naval Air Service throughout the past 20 years or more, we should not be so far behind nowadays when we have only six-year-old 90-mile-an-hour torpedo aircraft. I went over to America eight years ago to have a look at the American naval air service. It was too per cent. ahead of ours. Why could not we have bought torpedo aircraft from the American Navy when the war broke out, and it was necessary to base some of our torpedo aircraft ashore? I am sure we could have got them, and I expect we could get them now. The hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower) told the House that at the beginning of the war Coastal Command, doing naval work, had only American commercial machines, and a few flying boats for reconnaissance, no torpedo aircraft operating and no fighters or bombers. What would have been said of the Admiralty if they had been responsible for carrying out the naval duties performed by the Coastal Command of the R.A.F. if they had been so ill-equipped. When I came back from America I went to Short's works at Rochester, and I was shown—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is now advancing into aircraft production, for which there is a separate Vote.

Sir R. Keyes: I only wanted to point out how backward we were in certain types of aircraft. I think I can keep in Order.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. and gallant Member confines his remarks entirely to the Navy, he will be in Order, but if he speaks on another Vote, he will be out of Order.

Sir R. Keyes: I quite understand, Sir, since the Navy has not any flying boats though it ought to have, so I will leave it at that. What I do suggest is that the First Lord and the Air Ministry should really get together and try to provide the Royal Naval Air Service with up-to-date aircraft, so that the sort of thing which happened the other day, when three enemy ships went through the Channel, does not recur. The Admiralty had only six Swordfish torpedo planes at their disposal. Naturally, the Admiral threw them into the battle. They were seaborne torpedo bombers. What chance was there against the opposition they had to encounter? None. But if the Admiralty had had aircraft similar to those which the Japanese had, and the numbers they used against the "Prince of Wales" and the "Repulse," I doubt whether those ships would have ever got home.

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: I would like to ask a question about these torpedo-dropping aircraft, in which I have been interested for a considerable time. Who is responsible for the design of torpedo-dropping aircraft? Does it come under the Experimental Establishment at Farnborough, or whom, because we have been at war now for two and a half years, and as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) has just said, all we have are Swordfish aircraft, six or seven years old. Has nothing been done during the last two and a half years to improve the type of torpedo-dropping aircraft. It is no good the First Lord coming to the House and saying that he and the Secretary of State for Air are looking into the matter now and studying hard. Surely that ought to have been done during the last two and a half years. In the last war we never took two and a half years to develop new machines. We got them out in a few months, and we helped the Army to a considerable extent. A great many Naval Air Service machines were handed over to the Army when the Army were in difficult straits in the last war. If we could do that in the last war in a few months, why on earth cannot the Admiralty get proper torpedo planes for this war. I do not know how long the right hon. Gentleman has been. First Lord, but surely in his time he might have insisted on something being done to develop the torpedo plane and not let the

Japanese get away with it as they did. I said a few days ago that it was disgraceful that this should have happened, and I feel rather hot about it, having introduced the torpedo-carrying seaplane and aeroplane into the Navy. We old pioneers have been let down by the technical people, or by whoever is responsible at the Admiralty. I want the First Lord to tell the House who is responsible, and not get away with remarks to the effect that it will be looked into, and so on. Who is responsible?

Mr. Gallacher: I am sorry that the two rebels in the House, the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), were not given an opportunity of saying what they wanted to say. I want to know from the First Lord of the Admiralty how many of the "dead-heads" have been cleared out of the Admiralty since he took office. During the last few weeks I have had some experience of the people in the Department. They have brought to a fine art the system of how to prevent things from being done. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth was removed from command of the Commandos, because if he were still there, perhaps I could have persuaded him to make a Commando raid in Whitehall and go from one office to another cleaning out the whole gang and getting some new, fresh lads in so as to develop work that is essential. If the whole lot were cleaned out from the headquarters and new men were put in, the desire expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) that the work should be got ahead with would be accomplished. Will the First Lord tell us how many changes he has made among those responsible for this very important work? How many "dead-heads" has he kicked out?

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Will the First Lord, with the permission of the House, give some explanation on the questions that have been raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes)?

Mr. Alexander: I will speak again on this Vote with the permission of the House. When I rose to reply before, I


thought that no other hon. Member rose. The questions raised by the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) about the aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm are questions with which I am most vitally concerned. No one who has been responsible for the administrative control of the Navy during the past year and a half could have been anything but concerned about the situation in relation to the torpedo aircraft available for the use of the Fleet Air Arm, but to suggest that the actual aircraft which are in use are useless is, I think, to go too far.

Sir R. Keyes: Who said they were useless? I did not. I did not say anything of the sort. They are doing wonderful work, but they run great risks.

Mr. Alexander: I am very glad to have that cleared up. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the six Swordfish aircraft which attacked the other day had no chance.

Sir R. Keyes: No.

Mr. Alexander: I do not accept that, all the more so because they had fighter cover.

Sir R. Keyes: I did not say they had no chance of succeeding. I said they had no chance of returning.

Mr. Alexander: That depends very largely upon whether they had fighter protection—and they had—as I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will admit. I do not want a wrong impression to go out about the work of the Fleet Air Arm, and I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not want it either. Ever since I have been at the Admiralty, we have been pressing, and with some success, to get improvements in the equipment of the Fleet Air Arm. The suggestion that nothing has been done is quite false.

Sir M. Sueter: Will the First Lord tell the House exactly what success he has had in improving torpedo-dropping aircraft? The Swordfish aircraft was shown to me at Malta five years ago, and as it was probably designed a couple of years before that, that would make it seven years old. Where is the First Lord's success?

Mr. Alexander: The Swordfish was succeeded by the Albacore, which was slightly faster—not very much—and had some other improvements. It is largely in use to-day. Secondly, there is a very much more powerful and very much faster torpedo-bomber now coming into active production, which has been designed and developed for some considerable time.

Mr. Mander: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House. When he says that it is coming into active production, does he mean that deliveries will take place in the next month or so?

Mr. Alexander: I do not think I ought to give dates and details about new types of aircraft which will come against the enemy. What I can assure the House is that the work has been done, the preliminary tests and trials have been made, and the plane is coming into active production.

Sir M. Sueter: The right hon. Gentleman said he had had success. He has been 19 months in office—where is his success? That is what we are asking.

Mr. Alexander: What I am saying has to be taken in relation to the fact that those responsible for aircraft production have first to get the plan and the design off the drawing board; then to make the prototype and get the amendments made after the prototype trials have been flown.

Sir M. Sueter: It is no good talking to me about prototypes because I gave the Admiralty the prototype of a torpedo aeroplane 25 years ago. The right hon. Gentleman says he has had success. He has had no success.

Mr. Alexander: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not want to hear me—

Sir M. Sueter: Do not talk nonsense about prototypes.

Mr. Alexander: I am giving the facts. If there is anyone who has pressed more for this work to be done than I have during the last 18 months, in trying to get this equipment for the Fleet Air Arm, I should like to meet him. May I add something else? My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth referred to the possibility which there was of obtaining American machines for the purpose of improving the speed and equipment of the Fleet Air


Arm. That has been in progress during the whole of the time I have been at the Admiralty, and we have got fighters, Martlets and other types, which were obtained early on, although, as I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will recognise, many technical alterations had to be made in them to make them successful.
There is one other point I want to make with reference to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford concerning the development of the work of the Fleet Air Arm and the obtaining of faster torpedo-bombers to fly off carriers. We have also had concurrently another problem to settle, and that was the arrangements for landing the very much faster machines. This work has been developed and brought up to date, and we are now able to handle on carriers, as a result of these developments, very fast fighter machines and, equally well, the fast torpedo-bombers which are coming into production. That is the extent of the success which, I submit, has been accomplished.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I want to remind the First Lord of the Admiralty of something he said during the Navy Estimates to which I attached the greatest importance. He said:
But the experience in the case of the 'Prince of Wales' and 'Repulse' points to the fact that every possible drive has to be put into further equipping ourselves for the development of this form of attack.
That is torpedo-bombing. He then went on to say:
I have strong views on the question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1942; col. 382; Vol. 378.]
I only want to ask him if he will kindly express those views. I suggest to him that he has not done so.

Mr. Alexander: Obviously, what I had in mind there was the torpedo-bomber attack upon the Fleet, which was not carried out from aircraft carriers. The attack was made by land-based torpedo-bombers. I feel it to be of vast importance that the Fleet should have at its service an adequate number of shore-based torpedo-bombers for the same kind of work as was carried out against our two ships by the Japanese. There must be no misunderstanding in the House about my views on that. My hon. and gallant

Friend the Member for Hertford hoped we should get together with the Air Ministry in regard to future development. I can assure him that the Admiralty are doing all they possibly can in that direction to get what we feel the Navy needs and must have.

Mr. Lindsay: Is this the view not only of the First Lord but of the Government?

Mr. Alexander: I am speaking on the Navy Estimates for the Board of Admiralty and of what their view is on these requirements. I was asked whether we would get together with the Air Ministry. We submit our views to the Government, and we shall do our best to get our needs met at the earliest possible date.

Sir R. Keyes: The First Lord has really got away from my point. I was not complaining so much about the Fleet Air Arm sea-borne craft. What I was complaining about was that Fleet Air Arm aircraft, which were designed to fight only from aircraft carriers, should have to be used for shore bases—because of the narrow waters of the Mediterranean where they constantly meet shore-based fighters of the enemy which absolutely outclass them and cause many casualties.

Mr. Alexander: I am aware that in many instances the torpedo-bombers of the Fleet Air Arm have worked in conjunction with the Royal Air Force on that basis and in those operations.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: What a muddle. It is not your fault.

Mr. Alexander: I am sure they have done very wonderful work.

Sir R. Keyes: Very wonderful.

Mr. Alexander: I can only say that I should very much desire, if they were doing work of that kind with the Royal Air Force, that they should at all times have bomber machines of a pace equal to the speed of the Royal Air Force machines. I cannot deny that they have done work with the Royal Air Force on land-based establishments in that kind of operations.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Second and Third Resolutions agreed to.

REPORT [19th February].

Resolutions reported:

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1942.

NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.

1. "That such number of Land Forces of all ranks, as His Majesty may deem necessary, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and Abroad, exclusive of India and Burma, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943."

PAY, &C., OF THE ARMY.

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £100 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, &c., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943."

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1941.

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3rst day of March, 1942, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year."

Schedule


—
Sums not exceeding


Supply Grants.
Appropriations in Aid.


Vote.
£
£


1. Pay, &amp;c, of the Army.
10
75,000,000

First Resolution read a Second time:

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Lawson: I wish to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office one or two questions. Since we debated the Army Estimates there has been a change in the War Office. Unfortunately we cannot have the Secretary of State for War in this House, although, if I may say so, he has a very good substitute on the Front Bench. I am sure we are all in agreement that the sooner he is in the House the better, and we wish him a better time than his two predecessors. He has assumed office in a way which has become habitual to Secretaries of State—he has decided to review the qualities of all officers over 45 years of age up to the rank of lieutenant-colonel. It is a commonplace to say that youth will have its way, but if ever there was a conflict in

which it could be said that it was a young man's war, this is the one. I do not exactly come from Scotland, but I come from a county near enough to have learned a little from that country.

Mr. Kirkwood: We percolated into it.

Mr. Lawson: It is quite impossible to resist their influence, and consequently I am not so apt to be influenced by catch phrases. I wish to ask the Financial Secretary to explain just what is the system whereby the War Office are to test the qualities of these officers who will come under review. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), when he was Secretary of State for War, made changes at the top just before the war, and his successor made changes on the women's side. We want to be quite sure that in the review that is taking place quality for modern fighting is going to be the real test.
The hon. Gentleman will have gathered from supplementary questions yesterday that there is some question in the mind of certain Members as to what would be the value of this test. There are others who think we ought to go much higher than lieutenant-colonel. There may be need of that, and I daresay the Government would not hesitate about it if necessary. I have long held the view that the real difficulty that the Army has to face is not the commands so much as their selection of the average type of officer, and I think the hon. Gentleman and those connected with the War Office ought to know that there is very grave question still in the minds of a number of people as to whether the quality of the officer is the test, or his social status, or the school he went to. We know of a certain gentleman who was asked what school he had been to. I know the War Office would not tolerate that kind of thing as far as they are concerned, but have they a proper grip of the selection machinery, of the people who select the men from the youths until final selection? I do not say that the old school tie is the only thing that you have to criticise. Everything points to the fact that you have to have a considerable stiffening of men of leadership, men of quality and ability who have had experience of the rough and tumble of life but who may not have academic qualifications at all. I hope that is


borne in mind. You can get a good N.C.O. who has neither been to one of the old schools nor to a secondary school nor to college. I hope very serious attention is given to this factor.
I asked the hon. Gentleman yesterday whether they were extending Commando training to other units, and in general he said they were. I do not know just what that means. The Commandos properly are a force which acts as a rule with naval units and the Air Force, jointly, for some sudden descent at some unexpected point. The principle of the Commando does not necessarily mean cooperation with other Forces. What it means is that you have a small body or bodies of men who act under leadership, take very grave risks and go out "on their own." I do not think it would be stretching it too far to say that what is called infiltration, as practised by the Japanese, is one application of the same principle. I think you could also say that you have the same principle in operation in the guerilla forces in Russia and elsewhere. The Commando is just a form of guerilla. I do not know what the attitude of the War Office towards the Commando is. I do not know whether they have given sufficient thought to possible developments of the idea for the Fighting Services, but I hope the matter is receiving the attention of the War Office, because, if one thing is certain, it is that in this war we have to have a considerable number of detachments and units which are prepared, so to speak, to go out in the blue for that purpose.
I should like to put another question, in connection with the Beveridge Report. In dealing with their investigation into the waste of man-power into the Army, they propose the setting-up of a corps of mechanical engineers. They said they had been very much influenced by the result of the corps of instructors in the Navy, and they said:
The Navy is machine-minded. The Army cannot afford to be less so. The Navy sets engineers to catch, test, train and use engineers. Until the Army gives to mechanical and electrical engineers, as distinct from civil engineers, their appropriate place and influence in the Army system, such engineers are not likely to be caught, tested and trained so well as in the Navy. There is danger that they will be misused by men whose main interests and duties lie in other fields.

Have the War Office taken any decision on that matter, and have they decided either for or against the forming of a corps of mechanical engineers? I have always thought that the model of the Navy was one that the Army might well have copied long ago. I shall be very pleased indeed if the hon. Gentleman can give an answer to my question in the affirmative.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I want to raise the point that I raised on the Admiralty Vote, the question of the registration of young men between 16 and 18 who come under the cadet system. I understand that the War Office intends to go in for a considerable expansion, probably five-or ten-fold, of the existing numbers, but I think there is still confusion, because in the first registration the age for cadets is from 14 to 17. The age for the Home Guard is quite indefinite. In the first registration the numbers who belonged to an organisation have been swollen all over the country, especially in the rural districts, because a large number of young fellows between 17 and 18 have automatically joined the Home Guard. It was also discovered that quite a number between 16 and 17, and others who put their ages up, are also in the Home Guard. In the case of the Air Force there is a clear-cut pre-Service training unit of 16 to 18, and one boy in every five is in it. The scheme had as its head the director of pre-entry training until a few weeks ago—a distinguished educationist who was headmaster at Uppingham and was lent to the Air Force.
The Army is going in for an almost comparable expansion, and I would like to ask one or two questions about it. What arrangements have been made for the intake of, say, five times the present number of cadets? Why was an exclusive arrangement made with one of the voluntary associations? I do not object to the arrangement being made with that organisation—I think it is wholly good—but I have had complaints from a number of other organisations which would like to have been taken into confidence from the beginning. I would also like to ask whether there is not some young officer, preferably one who has been in action and been in the Commandos, who can be put at the head of this movement to inspire confidence throughout the youth of the country. Something of a dramatic


nature is needed. The scheme was launched in a rather curious way, and it did not make a great appeal. The Air Force were given priority in starting their movement, a letter was sent to the mayor of every town, arrangements were made with the Board of Education, and a careful course was worked out. I suggest that there should not be a great deal of drill, only enough for disciplinary purposes, but that the cadets should be something like a junior Commando organisation. That is the thing that would appeal to boys.
The position of a headmaster who has three pre-Service training units in his school is rapidly becoming absurd, and it will before long become a matter for consideration whether between 14 and i6 there should not be some preliminary basic general training for all three Services. Specialisation could then be simply worked out for the Army, Navy and Air Force during the two years 16 to 18. At the present moment it is rather confusing. I am not aware of anybody who is in charge, with great respect to Lord Bridgeman who is in charge of the Home Guard. I should like to have somebody to whom the cadets can look, a young, inspiring man who has been in action, who will adapt the training to modern conditions and will give a lead to the movement. If there are to be 150,000 cadets, as there are in the Air Force, it will have to be carefully organised and dovetailed and integrated into the educational system and the youth organisations of the country.

Mr. Muff: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), I note the changes on the Government Front Bench. The Financial Secretary to the War Office will soon be sitting in solitary glory with or without the moral support of the War Minister. On the last occasion the late War Minister, we thought, put up rather a good show. He is succeeded by the Permanent Secretary, who has served under four War Ministers, and some of us think that he was the man who ought to have been sacked. The new War Minister was introduced to the country as ruthless and, to use an Americanism, a "tough guy." We shall be interested to see how he introduces his policy of ruthlessness, whether he will practise it upon himself, and

whether we are to have a new order, the undistinguished order of the bowler hat, introduced in a wholesale fashion at the War Office. I would like to speak of the Territorial officers and men who have been absorbed by the war Army. I hope that the War Office will bear in mind these men who have given years of service. In the Air Force and the Navy the fact that officers and men were in the Reserve was recognised when they were absorbed. I am hoping, if my remarks reach the War Office and this "tough guy," that the officers and men who were in the Territorials will be allowed to have the honourable "T" restored to them, for it showed that they had put in honourable years of service as Territorials before the war.
For two years I have been a member of His Majesty's Forces. I have no uniform, but I am an accredited member as a welfare officer. I have been most encouraged by the work which has been done by the thousand or so welfare officers in every command. In the Northern Command, to which I am attached without pips, I know of only one who is paid, and we have to pay him because he has to live. He draws the Army pay of an officer. I mention this because in the Debate on the Estimates the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) referred to welfare officers and imagined them in all the splendour of their uniforms, strutting about like peacocks. Most of these officers are doing their work without any spotlight. Their attention is concentrated on the small units, anti-aircraft searchlights and so forth.
Owing to this department of the War Office having been developed, first by Sir John Brown, and being now under its present distinguished head with his staff, it is very efficient. It is not now so much a question of the provision of amenities—draughts boards, games and so forth—as of the personal contact which is maintained by welfare officers. One welfare officer in Sheffield received 27 letters in one day from soldiers. I also get my share. As I am a civilian, either a soldier or the commander-in-chief can approach me for advice. We deal now with the personal problems of the soldier. For instance, a man's wife is ill, or, as happened the other day, he is concerned because he has not had a letter from his wife, which, I may say, is most refreshing, because among other things we have


been asked how to get easy divorces. Other soldiers are concerned about the care of their children. I spend a lot of my time visiting the households of the wives of serving soldiers, and to try my best to be a cheerful visitor. One of the jobs which welfare officers are doing is trying to keep up the morale of the Army. In Britain at any rate the Army to-day is standing by and waiting, and it is monotonous, routine work, without a lot of excitement, but I am certain the men will be ready to serve in other ways and will be "on their toes" when the time comes. I wish to refer next to education in the Army. In pre-war days it had been greatly developed.

Mr. Deputy - Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): That subject comes under a separate Vote.

Mr. Muff: Then I will leave that subject. In regard to the personal care of soldiers—and I do not mean by that the coddling of soldiers—I very much value a little booklet called "Current Affairs," which is issued fortnightly. I wish it could be an Army instruction that every subaltern should receive a copy of "Current Affairs" fortnightly — those who do get it now find it very interesting—and that he should get his platoon together during working hours, not in the men's leisure time, and explain to them what "Current Affairs" has to say, because it has something of interest for every soldier who takes an interest in his country. I should also like to talk about padres and chaplains. I wish we could introduce into the Army the system that prevails in the Navy. I believe the padres would do their work better without pips on their shoulders and with not so much saluting.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) mentioned the old school tie. The present Adjutant-General, when he was Commander-in-Chief, Northern Command, went through the list of pass-outs from an O.C.T.U. He told me so himself. He analysed the list of those in one O.C.T.U. which was supposed to be "rather the thing" and he found that the majority of the men who had passed out had not come from the great public schools. Those schools had their share, and we want them to have their share, because I am not going in for class distinctions and shall not say that

Borstal shall not compete with Eton, because there is no reason why it should not. It was found that secondary school boys came out of that O.C.T.U. with greater distinction than the boys from some of our great public schools. Personally, I should like the whole lot to come out with distinction, and I draw no distinction between the secondary school and what is known as the public school. Finally, I would say that I hope that when the Financial Secretary to the War Office or his secretary looks at my speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow some of the questions I have raised which are of vital interest to officers and men will be dealt with sympathetically, looking forward and not looking backward.

General Sir George Jeffreys: I should like to refer to the question of air co-operation. It has been acknowledged that air co-operation in the Army has not been, shall we say, as satisfactory as it ought to have been, and I do hope that this matter will engage the very earnest attention of the War Office and, incidentally, of the War Cabinet, because to send troops on any modern expedition without the proper proportion of air support is just as absurd as it would be to send troops without their due proportion of artillery. It is an undoubted fact that again and again in recent operations the failure of those operations has been put down to the lack of air support and air co-operation. The last thing I want to do is to engage in any controversy, and this question has been side-tracked by controversy over the question of the dismemberment of the Air Force. I do not wish to advocate dismemberment of the Air Force, but I do want to advocate that every military formation should have its due proportion of Air Force allotted to it for such operations as it may have to undertake. For great, premeditated operations it may be necessary to have more than the ordinary proportion, exactly in the same way as more, and considerably more, than the ordinary divisional allotment of artillery is allotted, and always has been allotted, to troops about to take part in great operations.
I should like to see exactly the same principle in the allotment of Air Force. If it is a matter of command, then there can be no doubt that any Air Force allotted to work with the Army must necessarily be commanded by an Air


Force officer, in precisely the same way as the artillery of a division, a corps or an army is commanded by an artillery officer, for technical reasons. But I do suggest, indeed, I go further and say it is essential, that in any great military operation the military commander must be the commander-in-chief, and that such Air Force as is allotted to him for the purpose of the operations he is undertaking must be under his command and at his disposal.
A very unfortunate state of affairs prevailed in the Middle East last year. The Air Force was under the command of an officer of equal rank with the military and naval commanders-in-chief, and it rested with him to allot his admittedly inadequate force to various theatres. He had calls from Libya, Abyssinia, Iraq and the Fleet, and subsequently from Greece, Crete and Syria. The result of his most unenviable task in trying to make a satisfactory allotment was that we were left strong in no single theatre. There should be a definite and normal proportion of Air Force allotted to work with military formations, and the allotment should be supplemented as necessary, no doubt at the discretion of the air officer commanding. The commander of the military forces must have all his forces, including the Air Force, at his disposal, for any operations which he may have to undertake.
The selection and testing of candidates for commissions is admittedly very difficult. Some hon. Members seem to jump to the conclusion that it was comparatively simple during the last war, because the men had been tested in the field, so to speak. I had considerable experience in selecting candidates and recommending them for commissions during the last war, and I can assure the House that it was not a simple matter. It was very much the reverse. The qualifications are, and always should be, very simple; they consist of a due proportion of education and strength of character. It is impossible for a man without education to acquire the technical knowledge which every officer should possess, and with strength of character should go power of command. It is easy to say those things, but it is not always easy to judge, and the inclination of anybody who has to make recommendations for commissions is obviously to take the best educated

candidates. Sometimes, however, education does not go far enough. I have known persons of great educational attainments who had not the necessary strength of character to enable them to command men, which is the principal duty of an officer. On the other hand, one has known candidates with strength of character, possibly to a very considerable degree, without the education, and sometimes without the intelligence, to enable them to learn and to carry out the multifarious duties of an officer in the field.
I remember that divisional commanders were faced with a great shortage of officers at one time during the last war. There had been heavy casualties, but we were told to produce 12 candidates every month for commissions. Several of my brother divisional commanders and myself went to the Army Commander and told him that we would send the very best 12 candidates we could find, "but," we added, "we can tell you beforehand that 8 out of the 12 will probably not make good officers," and that was a fact. It was very difficult to find officers. I do not think that the difficulty is nearly so great in the present conflict, because, for one thing, we have not made the fatal mistake that was made in the last war of getting an enormous quantity of our potential officer material killed as private soldiers—inadequately trained private soldiers—very early in the war. This time we have the material in very considerable quantities, but still selection is difficult, and much must depend on those officers who have to make the recommendations, and particularly on those commanding cadet units whose business it is not only to instruct potential officers but to watch them carefully, draw out their characteristics, good, bad and indifferent, and make the final recommendations as to who should receive commissions.
In peace-time we had a system of promotion from the ranks, and it was not a badly-thought-out system at all, but it was difficult because there was a tendency among commanding officers to choose young men of good character and the best education. A certain amount of difficulty was caused by the fact that officers were told that they must send in names. No doubt that was a very good precaution in order to ensure that people


who deserved promotion from the ranks were not merely glossed over. Very often the only way of testing was to find out a candidate's education, and naturally commanding officers took those who had first-class certificates of education, and good characters. The result was what I heard a distinguished officer allude to as a number of blameless clerks sent forward for commissions, and they were not always a success. They had got past on account of their military character, and incidentally by their education, but their power of leadership had not been tested. The best educated young men were apt to be put in the quartermaster's stores or some position where their educational attainments would have full play, and they were never tested to show whether they could command a section in the field or a corporal's guard. One cannot lay down hard-and-fast rules about the matter, but one should keep in mind two things of most importance; one is knowledge, which must be based on education, and the other is strength of character, which alone can give influence and power of command over other men, such as every officer ought to have. If we keep those points in mind, we shall not go far wrong.
The cadet unit is an immense advance as compared with the last war. In the last war it was only introduced in the last year or year and a half, and it at once produced a difference in the standard of the officers who were receiving commissions at that time. I cannot help thinking that if it is properly run now, and if there is a real test of these officers when they pass out of the cadet school, we ought not to go very far wrong, even though the system has not as yet been tested to any great extent in the field.
I would like next to refer to the question of discipline. I do so because there has been a great tendency, both in some of the newspapers and in this House, to decry the value of discipline as such and the value of what might be called the outward signs of discipline, which are smartness, saluting, general self-respect, appearance and so forth. One Member in the war debate, I think it was the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), said that our system of training was wrong and o went on to say that there was too much drill, discipline, saluting, physical training and spit and polish, if I remember

aright. Discipline is still all-important, and good discipline gives a commander control over those under him, control which he must have for efficiency, and it gives the man a habit of instinctive obedience and of self-control, which is very important. The ideal, I would say, is the disciplined soldier with his body trained to make him fit for hard work and his mind trained so as to be receptive of the instructions which he has to receive and assimilate.
The outward signs of discipline are of very great importance, and human nature has a good deal to do with that. What are the outward signs of discipline? First of all, saluting. Undoubtedly saluting is the outward sign of the respect which a soldier ought to feel for his superiors in the Service. It is incidentally a matter of courtesy, and courtesy is not a small thing, either in the Service or elsewhere. Besides that, there is the manner in which a soldier addresses his superiors, and by his superiors I do not mean only officers, I mean also warrant officers and non-commissioned officers. They have to be addressed with respect, and I would say that if a man does not have to show respect, he is very apt not to feel it; it is very bad for him if he does not feel it, and there is something wrong with the discipline. Then there are the outward signs connected with the man himself. If he is smart, alert, active and self-respecting, he has at any rate all the outward signs of a good soldier, and I am afraid that all too often in these days, so far as the outward signs are concerned, they are apt to be absent, or at any rate not very conspicuous. On the other hand, there is a very great relationship between what a man looks like and what he feels like.

Major Owen (Carnarvon): Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that the present dress of the soldier, battle dress, is designed for good discipline? Is it not a fact that this dress helps to create indiscipline in the sense of a lack of self-respect?

Sir G. Jeffreys: I was about to refer to that very matter myself, and I will do so in a moment. If I may just elaborate the the argument I was making, it is that if a man looks down-at-heel and rather like a tramp, he is very apt to feel down-at-heel and like a tramp, which is a very bad


way for a soldier to feel. On the other hand, if he looks as if he has taken some trouble—and indeed must have taken some trouble—to make himself smart, alert and self-respecting, then he is apt to feel that way, and that is the way a soldier should feel if he is a really trained and reliable man.
I was about to refer to the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend about battle dress. It is rather hard on the Army to be put permanently into battle dress, because it is very difficult to look smart in it. One has even heard it said, I am sure unthinkingly, how very much smarter airmen look than soldiers when you see them in the streets. I think there is a good deal in it. The airman's dress is nearly the same, although of a different colour, but I personally think that it is a dress in which it is possible to look smart. It is very hard indeed to look smart in battle dress. I know the difficulty of producing—

Mr. McKinlay: Is not the hon. and gallant Member creating very considerable difficulties for those who follow in the Debate, because my reading of the situation at the moment is that it is a general Debate covering all the ramifications of the Army, and I am not quite satisfied. It is not the hon. and gallant Member's purpose or intention that I am challenging.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is not quite right in saying that this is a general Debate. It is a Debate on the particular Votes which are under consideration, the number of men, personnel and pay. It is a little difficult sometimes to decide what questions are or are not in Order, but generally speaking it is right to say that we cannot discuss on this Vote matters which come under another special Vote. Now there is a special Vote with regard to clothing, but I think the Vote on personnel does allow a certain amount of discussion as to the way in which the soldier is clothed, from the point of view of its effect generally upon his morale. I think that is about the best explanation I can give of the position. As to what is permissible, I think the hon. Member will permit me, if I hear him going beyond what is in Order, to stop him.

Captain Godfrey Nicholson: While we are on the subject, could the Deputy-Speaker enlighten me as to whether it would be in Order for me to address the House on the Home Guard?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I very much hesitate to give a Ruling beforehand as to what will or will not be in Order. Hon. Members must take their chance; if they think they are in Order, they can go on until they are told they are not.

Mr. Kirkwood: Further to that point of Order. I would like to ask whether it would be in Order for me to raise the question of the new Minister of War, and by what right he was made the Minister of War irrespective of any consultation with this House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think not.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I did not intend to pursue the matter much further except to say that whether it is battle dress or any other dress, it is necessary to preserve the morale of the soldier as far as possible. I would only say one more word about appearances and particularly what is sometimes known as spit and polish. I do not think there is any hon. and gallant Member in the Navy present in the House at this moment, but if there were, I would ask him—and I do ask—whether anybody in that Service has ever heard of a dirty ship which was a good ship? Perhaps one might almost say that one has never heard of a dirty ship at all, but if such a thing did exist, would anybody say it was a good ship, or that any man in it who was a dirty man was a good man? If people ask, either outside this House, or Members inside, whether there is any example of really efficient troops who do very much go in for appearance and smartness, I would ask them whether they think that the Brigade of Guards is a good example of efficient troops. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Australians?"] The Brigade of Guards are, I believe, about the best troops in the world, and they are certainly not troops who disregard discipline, either real discipline or the outward appearances of discipline. I would go further, and say that there are troops in the world, and there are men in the world, who are absolutely first-rate fighting men by nature, but there is not one single one of such men and no body of such troops


who would not be better if they were thoroughly and strictly disciplined.
Lastly, I would say that the real test of discipline, the thing which makes the difference between really good, strict discipline and the reverse, is when things are going wrong, when things are difficult and dangerous, and when orders which have to be obeyed are disagreeable, difficult and dangerous to obey. That is a big test as to whether the officers have that power of command which enables them to take hold of weary, reluctant, perhaps even, I would say, half-beaten men and make them stand up to what they have got to do—[Interruption]—It has nevertheless got to be done if we are to be successful. No one who saw the retreat from Mons, which was not at all a pretty sight, or the retreat at the time of the German March offensive in 1918, would have had any difficulty whatever in picking out who were the well disciplined units and who were not.
I will say no more about discipline, but I would like to refer for a moment to the question of the introduction of a new rifle and bayonet. I see that a new rifle and bayonet is being introduced. I do not doubt it is an improvement on the old one.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Member cannot discuss equipment.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I apologise. In that case I think I should also be out of Order if I said anything about pay and allowances.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Pay and allowances come under a Vote we are discussing.

Sir G. Jeffreys: As I am in Order, I would like to say something very briefly about pay and allowances. I believe that the pay and allowances of the single unmarried private soldier are perfectly adequate, not to allow him to live in luxury, not to allow him to have every amusement he wants, but to be perfectly comfortable in his unit and to get his small requirements for his reasonable entertainment. I believe from some experience, and from what I have been told by serving officers, that except in exceptional circumstances the pay and allowances for a single private soldier are adequate. It is a different matter when

we come to the question of the soldier's relatives. There, to my mind, is the whole difficulty and secret of this matter. I believe that if the soldier can feel that his dependants, his wife and his family, have enough to live in reasonable comfort, he will not bother so long as he has enough for his small personal expenses in his own pocket.

Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he had consulted officers on this and that the allowances of a single private soldier were adequate. Has he consulted the men who are actually affected by his statement? Are they satisfied, or is it just officers who say that the men are satisfied?

Sir G. Jeffreys: I will tell the hon. Member of one case within my knowledge, of a young man of my acquaintance who was duly called up. He did not come of a poor family, and his father offered to give him an allowance, which he declined, because, he said, he had ample for his personal requirements in camp.

Mr. Kirkwood: You tell that to the Marines

Sir G. Jeffreys: What I was coming to is this, that in my experience the pay of the non-commissioned officer ought to be increased. The non-commissioned officer has responsible duties, and if he is a good non-commissioned officer, he is very cheap at the price at which the Government get him. This applies in war-time; it would apply perhaps even more in peace-time, because the non-commissioned officer, the really good man, was tempted away from the Army when the Army had very great need of him, to go, for instance, to the police or to some other more remunerative job where his abilities could have full scope.
One point I should like to mention is about acting and lance ranks. In wartime, with the swollen establishments, and a very large number of posts, which are very conspicuous in London, for example, under the command of non-commissioned officers, many men, either lance-corporals or corporals, have to be given the acting or lance rank of sergeant or, in certain cases, of corporal, in order to take charge of these various posts and to take charge of those various duties for which noncommissioned officers are essential. Only the number on the establishment can draw pay for these lance ranks. I am perfectly


aware of the difficulty which is caused by the question of establishments, on which the Treasury has a great deal to say, but I do ask that this matter be looked at with a more lenient eye. I would agree that there must be a limit somewhere, that there cannot be unlimited lance ranks, but I think that the present limit is inadequate and that discretion might very well be given to officers not below, say, the status of a brigade commander, to decide on the number of extra acting and lance ranks which might reasonably be allowed to draw the pay of those ranks.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I intend, if I may, to take the risk which you, Sir, permitted the House, a few minutes ago, and to ask two very short questions in regard to the Home Guard. I notice that the Estimate refers to the numbers of the Army, and as the Home Guard is now recognised as part of the Regular Army, I am taking advantage of your permission. I only wish to ask two particular questions which I hope my hon. Friend will be able to answer to-day. They are questions which very gravely affect the capacity and the morale of the Home Guard. One is the question of compulsion. As the House will recall, the late Under-Secretary announced some months ago that compulsion would be introduced and made generally applicable throughout the country. Unfortunately, although generally applicable, it is not generally applied. Therefore, a number of anomalies exist, which are disturbing and annoying and contrary to the best interests of the Home Guard. In the country districts, you will find that in one parish compulsion is imposed and in the next it is not, because it happens to be in a different command. I take it that the General Officer Commanding has the responsibility for introducing compulsion in his command. From all sections of the Home Guard come constant demands that compulsion shall be generally applied. It is felt unfair to continue to increase the burden on the willing horses. For over a year and a half these very willing horses have been bearing the burden of guards and picquets, and sometimes fatigues, uncomplainingly, and generously giving their short spare time for what they regard as an essential public duty. If compulsion is generally applied those fellows will be given a little more time, and they will

feel that all the lazy or unwilling people—and there are still some in this country—are bearing their share.
There is another point, which is really in the same category, because it affects the numbers and efficiency of the Home Guard. That is the question of travelling allowances for men coming from their homes for operational instruction, Home Guard exercises, or instructional parades. Throughout this country, especially in the large cities and urban districts, there are a number of men employed in factories and offices at some distance from their homes. Sunday is the one day of the week on which the Home Guard can be really mobilised, on which instructional parades, and certainly exercises upon any scale, can be held. Members of the Home Guard want to attend these parades; they want to make themselves more efficient, but they have to pay their expenses themselves. That is not fair. It hampers these men in their desire to make themselves more efficient. I know that the subject is under consideration, and that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office will do all that he can to make the Treasury realise that it is right to pay these expenses, in the interests of the Home Guard—and, therefore, in the interests of the country, for we may have to depend upon the Home Guard. The Home Guard is the cheapest force that there has ever been in this country, and no stone should be left unturned in the effort to make it efficient. Those are the only two points I have to raise. I have curtailed my remarks, in order to give other hon. Members who wish to speak an opportunity to do so.

Colonel Arthur Evans: I think all hon. Members will find themselves in complete agreement with the views of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) on the question of Army discipline. I doubt whether any Member of this House has a greater claim to speak on Army discipline. I think it is the experience of Members who have served during the current war that battle dress does not help in that very difficult problem; but we have to weigh in the balance certain fundamental considerations. Is battle dress satisfactory when it comes to campaigning? That is the only acid test to apply at present. At the same time,


the War Office can help by not discouraging those little regimental idiosyncracies, and by incorporating them in the uniform when they can, in order to give that distinction which means so much in esprit de corps. In other days the soldier used to take an instinctive pride in being able to recognise at a glance the regiment of another soldier, even in Service uniform, from the way his buttons were arranged, or from his regimental badge. This regimental spirit is being unnecessarily depressed, and that is not in the interests of morale or esprit de corps. In the early days of the war, the authorities decided that it was not desirable that our troops engaged in certain fields of war should be identified by having their units named. In the communiqués there was no mention of the regiment, the formation, or the arm of the Service, to which particular troops belonged. But in the old days, we found that when it was stated that one regiment had distinguished itself or that another regiment had had a very sticky time, it created an intense public interest in the welfare of individual regiments, which permeated down through the commands to the regiments, and gave the soldier that feeling of regimental pride which is so vital for morale and discipline. Everything that the War Office can do, within practical limits, to stimulate that spirit will be to the good.

Mr. Lawson: All the world knows now when British troops are in action in different parts of the world, except the people of Britain.

Colonel Evans: Exactly. I rose mainly because I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for East Hull (Mr. Muff), who spoke about Army welfare. I am not satisfied that all is right with Army welfare. I am not satisfied that the organisation which the War Office has set up is the best. I may be old-fashioned, but I share the view that the most important welfare officer is the junior regimental officer. Anything that tends to dispel from his mind the idea that the welfare of his men should not be his first consideration would be a most unfortunate thing for the Army. But there are many problems in civilian life, arising out of war emergency regulations, which are outside the scope of the regimental officer, because he is not informed of them. He has not the time, and in

many cases he has not the knowledge to give the right advice.
There are many legal questions which arise affecting the personal life of the soldier and the lives of his relatives and his next of kin at home on which even his regimental commanding officer is not in a position to advise him with the knowledge and skill that he would like to employ. Therefore, that is where the Army welfare organisation, which has been set up since the war, should operate, and I am not satisfied that it operates quite as well as it should. If we start at the top, we find that there is a Director-General, with a staff at the War Office which is combined with the Army and education services and presided over by a Territorial Major-General. On his staff there are certain deputy-directors and other staff officers, who, I assume, are adequate for the problem with which they have to deal. They are paid staff officers on the establishment of the War Office and receive pay and allowances as any other staff officers would do in any other military formation, but when we leave the directing head and come down to the unit and the individual, that organisation ceases to be of a paid Army character.
Each static command in the United Kingdom has a commanding welfare officer carrying the rank of acting-Colonel (unpaid). He is assisted by a deputy-director carrying the rank of acting-Lieut.-Colonel (unpaid), with a limited established staff, also unpaid, to carry out the work which comes to him through the regiment, the brigade and the division to the command headquarters. I well remember a short time ago, when two static commands were divided in the country—and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office will appreciate the commands to which I refer—it was necessary to set up an entirely new command establishment welfare organisation, and the general officer commanding-in-chief of the command concerned selected his man, who happened to be a very distinguished Regular Army retired major-general, who had recently retired from active command, to set up this organisation. I was privileged to have a conversation with him shortly after he was given the new appointment. He had to set up an organisation without adequate finance, without adequate staff, and without travelling facilities to reach the formations for which he was to be responsible,


and he had an entirely inadequate organisation with which to deal properly with the problem. It was pointed out to me that it was necessary for him to have a deputy-director to spend the whole of his time in office organisation and to set up the organisation at the start. He would probably have to come from his ordinary place of residence and take up residence in a strange town where accommodation might be difficult and expensive to find, and have to set up an organisation entirely on a voluntary basis. This man was working 10, 12 and 16 hours a day without any pay at all. He was not to be given the facilities that were absolutely necessary to enable him to discharge his duties with efficiency. He was going to try and recruit from various sources other voluntary helpers to advise him on the legal problems to which I recently referred, such as housing questions and problems of allowances paid under this Regulation or that Regulation.
If the Army consider that it is necessary to have a welfare organisation in a static command in this country, they should admit that it is right and proper to have an efficient organisation, properly paid and administered, and acting under direct Army orders of the general officer commanding-in-chief. That would enable him to use the normal channels of Army communication through the division and the brigade down to the unit, and, if necessary, up to the War Office. He cannot use the normal military channels and he has not an adequate staff with which to deal with the matter. I do not think that it is fair to quote in this instance the question of the London district, which has been very fortunate in its organisation and its Director. It started in the very early days, and the officer who presides over that organisation in London was fortunate in collecting a large amount of public funds, and, being situated in London, to have at his disposal a large number of part-time, well-disposed civilians, authorities in their own field, who were able to offer part of their time. But where command headquarters are situated out in the blue, in some out of the way country district where these things are impossible, it is not fair to say that, if you can do it in London, you ought to be able to do it in the north, east, south or west. The problems are not comparable, and I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will look

into the matter to see whether it is possible to give the command welfare officers, who are doing their best to discharge their office, the opportunity of doing so on a financially sound and adequate administrative basis.
I come to the question of those officers of 45, who, as a result of the new Regulations, may be found to be unfitted to continue in their present commands. I do not want to touch upon the question of the Home Guard in any detail, but only wish to bring it in for a minute or two in relation to my general argument. If the Home Guard to-day is part of the Regular Army, and it is a real force upon which the authorities have decided to rely to a very large extent in the event of invasion of this country, there can be no half-way house, and everything we can do within the limits of our resources to-day to strengthen that military body should be done. There are many officers in the Regular Army to-day who for one reason or another may be unfitted to continue in their present command, and who, under the new Regulations, will be retired. Their services might well be utilised as group commanders or as zone commanders in the Home Guard. Nine out of ten of them have been serving continuously with the Regular Army since mobilisation. They may have been in the Regular Army, Reserve of Officers or the Territorial Army, Reserve of Officers, and, in any case, their experience is spread over a long period. Therefore, it would be opportune if the War Office found a way of utilising their services in these administrative posts to which I have alluded. But they should not be asked to do it on a voluntary basis. That would not be fair. A man is worthy of his hire to-day whether he is a soldier or civilian, and it is not right to expect a Regular officer to come into the Home Guard for the benefit of his health only irrespective of his financial obligations outside the service. I hope that this very valuable material will not be lost to the nation at a time when the Home Guard might be called upon in the near future to play a most important part in the defence of our own country and that the War Office will consider this suggestion.

Captain Godfrey Nicholson: I propose as briefly as possible to deal, as I believe I am entitled to do in this Debate, with four or five discon-


nected questions. My first point is that of the Home Guard. I am not in the Home Guard, but during the past few months I have had an opportunity of coming into personal contact with the Home Guard organisation in a rural part of Britain. I want to back up what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore). The Home Guard will not even retain its present degree of efficiency unless compulsion is applied, because it is losing heart. I would like to speak of a small town, which I know intimately, of 3,000 inhabitants. The Home Guard company in that town numbers 160, and not more than 50 or 60 turn up at the ordinary parades. Members of the Home Guard who turn up tell me that they are losing heart because there are so many men in that town who ought to be playing a part in the war effort but who are in reserved occupations and salve their consciences by doing a certain amount of fire-watching or something like that. I do not think it is fair to expect the Home Guard to be keen or efficient while they see so many people getting off their proper obligations.
Then there is the question of weapons for the Home Guard. I think the provision of pikes for the Home Guard, if it was not meant to be a joke, was an insult. With our immense war production, potential and actual, to-day I cannot see why every member of the Home Guard should not have a perfectly good and modern rifle. However, I will leave this matter there, as I see from your menacing gesture, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I should be out of Order if I pursued it. In a body of irregular troops—and I think I am right in calling the Home Guard irregular troops, because they were organised on that basis—there is one factor of supreme importance, and it is that they should be masters of their weapons. In the Home Guard not enough attention has been paid to training in the proper use of the rifle and how to shoot straight. There has not been enough ammunition, and there has been a lack of range facilities. The possibilities inherent in that organisation are immense, but at present not enough advantage is being taken of them.
We are having great changes at the War Office, and I want to say to the Secretary of State and to the new Joint Under-Secre-

tary, who is here on the Front Bench, that if you study the history of war, either ancient or modern, victories are won by only two kinds of Armies. There is the old unthinking sort, the Army of Kipling, which we had to some extent in the last war, which does its duty and fights but is not encouraged to think too much about the political cause for which it is called upon to fight, and then there is the sort of Army which is imbued with the revolutionary spirit, the kind of Army which won the Battle of Valmy, the Army which conquered France for Germany and the Army which is conquering Germany in Russia—a crusading Army. Is it not possible that in our proper concern for other aspects of military life—education, welfare discussion groups, health and so on—we have allowed our attention to be deflected and have fallen between two stools? I have heard many speeches about the Army in this House, but I have heard very little from any quarter about the need for fostering the fighting spirit. Only a little of this is being done in a limited way by one small branch of the Army. It should be possible to set up in this country special training centres, ten or a dozen if you like, where junior officers and senior N.C.O.'s can be trained in initiative, can be hardened and trained in irregular warfare. I have seen it done in a small way; the results are magnificent, but they should be multiplied ten or twelve-fold. After all, the whole country and indeed all civilisation depend on whether we can make the Army fight hard enough to win the war.
As at present trained in this country the Army—and I say this categorically—is deficient in initiative in every rank. In the junior ranks not enough attention is paid to training in initiation, and the middle and senior ranks are overwhelmed with administrative duties. Take the relatively simple question of a court of inquiry into some loss of stores or a simple accident—how many hands has it to go through? How many people have to see the papers, counter-sign them and deal with them? How much money can a battalion commander write off? He is the man you trust with the lives of hundreds of men, yet you hardly trust him with a few pounds. You appear to think that he is either a crook or is incompetent, yet you put perfect trust in him when he is dealing with men's lives. The whole thing is ludicrous. Staff officers breed staff


officers; paper breeds paper, and it is breeding at a terrific rate. While you have initiative and fighting spirit put into second place and questions of administration put into first place, and divisional or corps staffs concerned mainly with administrative detail instead of with fighting, it will be some time before our Army can win the war.
Thirdly, I do not think anybody who knows the true situation in the Army is content with the present degree of air cooperation, but I will leave this point at that. There is another matter, which is not of minor importance, and that is the attention which is officially focused on all troops, except English troops. Serious harm is being done all over the world by the implication that England is letting Scottish, Welsh, Irish and Empire troops do the fighting for her and that England is not doing her proper share. That also applies to some extent to the use of the word "British." We direct so much publicity and attention to Empire troops that what I think is a fact is forgotten—that British divisions come out of this war better than any other. I do not know if English or Scottish troops are better in battle, and if I did, I would not say so, because it would create enmity between two groups of people who stand or fall together and who are the best of friends. I think it is a mistake to let America think England is letting other people do the fighting for her, for it is not true.
I would like to refer to the question of men who are missing or who have been taken prisoner. I do not know if the House is aware of it, but it often happens that the wife of a man who is declared to be missing suffers a reduction of income because of that declaration. That, I think, is wrong. Take the case of the wife of a private soldier who is making an allotment from his pay. Suppose he is in a particularly difficult financial position and is receiving a War Service Grant. Seventeen weeks after he is declared to be missing it is assumed that the allotment from his pay has ceased; it automatically happens that the War Service Grant is cut off, and the woman is paid a continuing allowance, which, theoretically, is the amount she would receive as a pension if and when her husband is declared to be killed. It is an anomaly, although I know there is a lot to be said on the other

side, that because a man is missing his wife should suffer a heavy reduction in income when her same obligations continue to exist. These War Service Grants are usually to help to meet obligations towards some building society or something like that obligation which continue. All this may appear to be small thing, but I should be grateful if those responsible would cause inquiries to be made. With regard to prisoners of war, a series of unfortunate answers—I say "unfortunate" deliberately—which my hon. Friend gave in the House seemed to stress the fact that the War Office placed the primary responsibility for the welfare of prisoners of war upon an outside and voluntary society.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Sandys): Will my hon. and gallant Friend tell me when those answers were given? My impression is that I tried to stress the opposite.

Captain Nicholson: I am glad to hear that flat contradiction. I am not making any personal attack on my hon. Friend; I simply want it to be made clear that the War Office accept full and complete responsibility for the welfare of British Prisoners of War. They may devolve some of the actual administrative duties concerning that welfare to the Red Cross, but the responsibility starts, and remains, with the War Office, and it is no good the War Office saying that the Red Cross is a voluntary society and that they can have nothing to do with, for example, arrangements concerning Mr. Adams, and at the same time saying that they, and not the Red Cross, are primarily responsible for the welfare of prisoners of war. If I have misrepresented my hon. Friend—and I hope it is a misrepresentation—then I think the War Office ought to make it known as widely as possible that they do not attempt to devolve any of their primary responsibility towards these unfortunate men. I apologise for my disconnected remarks dealing with various subjects, but I hope I have kept my promise to be brief.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) told the story of a lad who joined the Forces and refused an allowance from his father because he was so wealthy in the Forces. Last Monday night I spoke at a meeting in Nottingham, and after the meeting I was approached by a group of soldiers. The


spokesman for them was a Welshman from Tonypandy, and he said, "Tell the Prime Minister we want proper pay, we want the abolition of the means test for our dependants, and we want something to do." If the soldiers had something to do, the question of battle dress would not arise. The hon. Member for East Hull (Mr. Muff) said that every subordinate officer ought to get a copy of "Current Events," and that he ought to get his men together, and give them the contents of "Current Events." The hon. and gallant Member for Farnham (Captain Nicholson) said that we need an Army with a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, I suggest that, instead of supplying "Current Events," it would be a very good thing if the Ministry were to supply every subordinate with a copy of the Communist manifesto, and if every subordinate made known those contents to his troops.

Captain Nicholson: I do not want to contradict the hon. Member, but that is not quite what I said. I should be thankful if the Army had the revolutionary spirit or any other spirit as long as it was a fighting spirit. I said that the trouble is that we have not got the old-fashioned spirit or the modern revolutionary spirit, and that we fall between two stools.

Mr. Gallacher: I think it would be found that many of the lads in the Army already have a fair understanding of the contents of the Communist manifesto. I listened with attention to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield, and as I listened I got the feeling that he had learned nothing and forgotten nothing of all that has happened during the past few years. He talked about officers being capable of commanding, he talked about discipline, as though these were the things that mattered. Sometimes it is very difficult to distinguish between commanding and brutal bullying. The lesson that has been taught us during the past two years is that we want, not commanders, but leaders in whom the men have the most complete confidence. It is not so much discipline as initiative that is wanted amongst the rank and file. I am certain that the hon. and gallant Member has not understood that. It is not a question of marching great masses of men to be butchered. Nowadays, along with the massed forces,

there has to be associated in the Army all kinds of groups, not only guerrillas, but motorised groups, cycle groups, patrol groups of every kind, all of them showing individual initiative. This initiative is needed not only on the part of certain officers who are in command, but in the men, who must be capable of taking individual initiative on every part of the front. Consider the lessons from the Pacific. What happened with the Japanese? Was it a case of marching up masses of men? No, it was a case of groups penetrating here and there, and of every kind of initiative being shown. The idea of the past, the dead idea, of marching out masses of men and forming squares to deal with thousands of unarmed natives—that was the idea in the Zulu War. That is what the hon. and gallant Member was thinking about—the Zulu War.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I was not thinking of anything of the kind. I wonder whether the hon. Member is thinking of anything at all, and whether he has ever taken part in any kind of operations in any war.

Mr. Gallacher: I have not taken part in any operations in war, but I have taken as much part in modern warlike operations as has the hon. and gallant Member. I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member and all officers of the Army ought to go to the Tatler Cinema and see the film "Suvarov." Here was a field-marshal who was dismissed because he refused to treat the men as automatons, because he refused to concern himself very much with such things as battle dress, and so on; he dressed as a private and 'went about the field of battle among his men, without his coat on, and in his shirt sleeves. Matters of dress are not of great concern. If the men are properly treated, if they have confidence in and are inspired by their leaders, and if they have something to do that is worth doing, they will not be very much concerned about dress. Why, I am told by some of my colleagues that in Scotland, in a snowstorm, a group of men had to polish their boots, polish their buttons, polish everything, and turn out for a special parade to meet a new padre. That is not the sort of thing that encourages the men.
Take the Russian Army. The Russian Army has discipline, but when the men


are off duty, there is not that stiff and superior attitude on the part of the officers towards the privates, and the privates do not salute at every step they take. The officers and men mix together, they go about the streets together, they go to cafés together, they play games together, and associate in the same clubs. Can hon. Members imagine, in this so-called democratic Army, a private soldier coming down the Strand and meeting the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield, in the full military uniform of a brigadier-general, and saying, "Hallo, Johnny, how are you? Going in for a glass of beer?" Can hon. Members imagine that? No. Why not? Cannot hon. Members understand that the old world is gone for ever, that an entirely new situation confronts us, that an entirely new kind of Army is wanted, a new type of army in which every man counts?
On this Estimate we are discussing the number of men in the Army. There is something I want to tell the Secretary of State, the Financial Secretary, and the Under-Secretary, whom I am very pleased to see on the Front Bench opposite. I do not know whether I have ever said that about any other Member on that Front Bench. I hope it will not count against the Under-Secretary. I do not know how many men there are in the Army, but there are two short, ex-Lance-Corporal Willis and ex-Corporal Mick Bennett. These two men showed the greatest possible qualities in the Army, and their commanders have discharged them with the highest possible characters. The predecessor of the present Secretary of State for War refused to give any reason why they were put out of the Army. Why were they put out of the Army? It was because they were young Communists. There are thousands of our party comrades in the Army, but these two were well known. One of them, ex-Lance-Corporal Willis, spoke a few words at what is known as the People's Convention. The general Press kept his name out of the papers, but a gentleman of the name of Hannen Swaffer was kind enough to reveal who he was in one of his articles. Had he been reprimanded, he could have understood it, but months afterwards he was discharged. Mick Bennett, who never committed an offence of any kind, was also given a high

character by his commanding officer. These lads were anxious to give their best services in the Army.
I have written to the new Secretary of State on the matter, asking him to take it up and put an end to this sort of thing. You can never hope to build up an Army or win a war where anything of this character is going on. I remember an earlier Secretary of State for War, who was recently in the East, asking me why I was so concerned about these young lads and young Communists being in the Army. He pointed out that any supporters of Capitalism in Russia would be put out of the Army. In the Soviet Union the Army is for the defence of the workers and the peasants and for the defence of the Soviet people. Is any Member on the other side of the House, or the Secretary of State for War, prepared to get up and say that the Army in this country exists for the defence of the capitalist class? If anyone says that it does, I agree there should be no young Communists in it. But, if you claim the Army exists for the defence of the country and the people, then there can be no political discrimination against young Communists.
I want to join with those who are dissatisfied about the situation in the Home Guard. I have been approached in this connection by my constituents, and I have attended various meetings of the Home Guard in Fife. I received a letter the other day, and I will read part of it to the House. It comes from a lad in the Home Guard. He is a very keen member. As has been said, the Home Guard may become vital for the defence of this country at any moment, and we do not want the casts-off from the Army as a result of the review of officers over the age of 45 put in the Home Guard. We want to use the initiative and leadership of the masses who are in the Home Guard. This lad states that the Home Guard in this area should be doubled in strength. He says:
Nothing has been decided and no information can be obtained from battalion or zone headquarters. All that has happened is that volunteers have been turned into conscripts.
He points out that the position is much about the same in the whole county, which is so much under strength as to be unequal to the task of putting up an effective defence against invasion.
The Ides of March draw near, but decisions are delayed and the man-power which


is available to bring up the strength of the Home Guard so as to make it really effective is untouched. Will you please ask the Secretary of State for War why these decisions which are so obvious and could be made by the ordinary intelligent man in a day take the military experts months?
That applies not only to the War Office but to other Departments as well. I said in the course of my remarks on the Navy Estimates that a Commando landing should be made in Whitehall to clean out all the Departments. They should clean the whole crowd out and get more energetic and active people in the Departments. I have had some experience of this. I raised a question with the Home Office, and the Home Office referred it to Scotland Yard. Scotland Yard referred the matter to the chief constable in the area affected and the chief constable referred it back to the Home Office. It is the same thing with these lads in the Home Guard, and they feel a sense of frustration because decisions are not made. This lad goes on to say:
Would you please ask Captain Margesson or his-successor
—fortunately it is his successor—
who is responsible for the issue of pikes to the Home Guard, and when may we expect the bows and arrows and slings?
You are not going to encourage the lads if you talk about the Home Guard having to meet the onslaught of an invading army with pikes. It is necessary for the War Office to take a decision and get the Home Guard up to strength, and to see that everything possible is done to ensure the utmost confidence will be inspired in those who are participating in the Service. I suggest that the War Office should send a representative to Fife to have a consultation with the four Fife Members and representatives of the Home Guard to consider what can be done to bring the Home Guard up to strength and to inspire confidence among its members. In conclusion I ask in all earnestness that the Secretary of State for War takes up the question of the restoration of ex-Corporal Willis and ex-Corporal Mick Bennett in the Army.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: I should like strongly to support what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) in support of compulsion for the Home Guard. It is quite certain to my mind if we continue with this idea that only in certain areas are you to have compulsion, all keenness

will disappear from that organisation. As far as I can see, it is impossible to say one zone is a danger area and another zone is not. It savours much too much of the business of having all your guns facing outwards round the coast. In one small town that I know, in what seems to me to be a very vital area, they started with a Home Guard of 80. Owing to calling up it has now gone down to 40, and they feel very strongly locally that there are a great many young men who might be doing better things, but who are now only doing tire-watching and that sort of thing. After all, the Home Guard has to be on duty for at least 48 hours a month. In the town to which I refer it is more than 10 weeks since they had an alert and the fire-watchers have needed to do nothing at all during that period. In country districts, some of which are not supposed to be dangerous areas, unless the Government develop compulsion you will lose a grand and vital spirit.
In the second place, may I suggest that in the reorganisation of the Army which is coming the Government should seriously consider whether there is not some method of giving better opportunities to men in the ranks, or junior officers, to get ideas considered. A man may have an idea for improving the efficiency of the Army—it is chiefly the people who are doing the job who get those ideas. He submits it to his platoon commander, who, if he is not too busy with all the papers about which we have heard, reluctantly sends it on to the company commander. It goes all the way up, and probably before any action is taken the circumstances have changed. I should have thought it was possible to develop a machinery whereby any man, whatever his rank, could make a suggestion without any fear that a superior officer would resent it. Cannot the Government consider some more efficient procedure?
I agree very much with what has been said about the terrible amount of administrative paper. Although I have not the honour to be in uniform I have heard a great deal about it. There are a great many papers which could be signed by non-commissioned officers but you have to hunt about for a commissioned officer, and he often signs it without the faintest idea of what it is about. A battalion commander has a considerable number of


men under his command but has no secretary to help him. You could not imagine similar conditions in business.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam: Surely the commanding officer has an adjutant who does that work for him?

Mr. Bartlett: An adjutant has a great many other things to do. Looking after 1,000 men is a very big job. The hon. and gallant Member for Farnham (Captain Nicholson) referred to Commandos. I find among men in the Army a growing feeling that unless we are very careful we shall develop the belief that the Commandos have all the dirty and risky things to do.

Captain Nicholson: I never mentioned them.

Mr. Bartlett: I understood the hon. and gallant Member was referring to them. I withdraw my reference to his speech. But I believe that unless we are careful we shall develop a belief that only in certain regiments is there any fighting to be done. When we send abroad such small expeditions as we recently sent to France—to the great joy of most people—we should as much as possible attach men from other regiments so that they can get trained in these ideas of carrying out defence by attack.
I should like to make a suggestion regarding cadets. You have the three Service Departments all training young cadets, and they are doing very good work indeed but, as I understand it, the War Office, the Admiralty and the Air Ministry are all competing for these young future recruits. Would it not be advisable to have one national service for these cadets, and that they should all wear the same uniform? It must surely be very wasteful to dress some in blue, some in khaki and so on. They should grow up in one service and later be transferred to the particular service for which they seem most apt. If you did that you would develop in the fighting services the spirit of co-operation between the three Departments which is so necessary. I find, especially in country districts, the feeling that it would do these boys a great deal of good if they received a general military training and were later transferred to the job for which

they showed themselves most useful and apt.

Mr. McKinlay: I intervene because I was interested in the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) dealing with discipline. I should never hope to enter on equal terms into a discussion with one who has such a distinguished record as the hon. and gallant Member, but I am rather inclined to think that he over-emphasised the gentility and the appearance of the average private soldier. I agree that there should be discipline and mutual respect between those serving in different ranks. But I am not inclined to agree that the fighting qualities of the soldier are determined by the uniform he wears. I know of no better fighting soldiers than the Colonials, who have not a very high regard for what are considered the ordinary decencies of discipline in our Forces at home, namely saluting and taking part in all kinds of flummery.
One part of the hon. and gallant Member's remarks which made a peculiar appeal to me referred to the question of promotion from the ranks. He was quite correct in saying that the commanding officers had difficulties in selecting those who had a good sound education and recommending them for commissions. The implication of his remarks was that such a recommendation could not go forward unless the man had the necessary educational background. The point that I want to raise is what is to happen to discipline where those in the ranks are educationally and intellectually superior to the commandant and have imposed on them insolence instead of discipline. I raised the point in connection with discipline in the women's service—the A.T.S. I agree that an army without discipline becomes a mob. We must have discipline. There must be mutual respect. That mutual respect must run through all ranks of the Services. There is an obligation on those who hold the highest commands to have at least respect for those who are under their jurisdiction. The complaint I made here was that my fellow countrywomen were positively insulted, and that they were intellectually superior in many instances, and in no case inferior to the person who insulted them. When they tried to make themselves more efficient by seeking counsel and guidance where they


ought to have got it, they were told to shut up. When the complaint was made in this House, the Financial Secretary was vehement, and said: "Bob's your uncle. I believe what the commandant says and I do not believe one of the other officers."
This is not a question of a commandant speaking brusquely to a serving soldier, but of a commandant speaking to those who had given distinguished service in the organisation before the commandant had had anything to do with it. I agree whole-heartedly that if we are to have an Army marching as an Army, there must be discipline, but if there is no respect accompanying that discipline the Army, soner or later, will become just a howling mob. I ask the Financial Secretary whether he will, at least, let the A.T.S. officers in Scotland know that he takes the view that there is something to inquire into. Not into my conduct, however. I have got past the stage when I have any charms even for A.T.S. officers, although it was suggested that I had in some way made them the unwilling conveyors of this news. I do not think that I could have cast any spell on the ladies to make them give this information. I say, however, that at least 39 distinguished countrywomen of mine were insulted in their own capital city by a person who expressed the hope that she would never require to conic back to Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman can do nothing more, I hope he will see that she is not disappointed in that hope.
The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) referred to the question of the soldier's appearance. I know a unit which last week-end had to parade to receive a new padre. They had to brush their boots, polish their buttons and so on—what for? To meet the man who is supposed to be their spiritual guide.

Mr. Goldie: Does the hon. Member suggest that the padre is responsible for that?

Mr. McKinlay: May I mildly protest against this House being made an institution for misunderstanding one?

Mr. Goldie: Not intentionally.

Mr. McKinlay: I am not saying that it is intentional. I may not look it, but I am a religious man myself. I say, however, that at a time like this it is criminal

to waste time for such a parade. It is no outward sign of discipline to impose these things on the men. The sooner it is realised that the Army to-day is a democratic institution the better. There are boys in the Army whose parents never dreamed that they would be there and who, by their early upbringing, had an objection to militarism in every shape and form. They are in it now, not because they were compelled, but because they considered it to be their duty. If you want to break the morale and spirit of these fellows, then carry on, but the sooner we realise that the Army is a democratic Army and the sooner we get a return for the money we are spending, the sooner we will get that co-operation from all ranks which must end in ultimate victory.

Mr. Leslie Boyce: I can hardly imagine any subject of greater interest to the enemy or more likely to provoke him to invade this country at an early date than the discussions which take place in Public Session on the deficiencies of the Home Guard. My purpose in intervening is to ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary whether it would be possible for a Debate to take place on the Home Guard in Secret Session, as there are many things that some of us would like to say.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Sandys): My hon. Friend will no doubt address that request to the Leader of the House in due course when Business is being discussed. We have had a wide Debate to-day, and I cannot hope to answer all the points that have been raised. If I am not able to deal with any of them, I assure hon. Members that they will receive from me some answer in the near future. There have been several speeches, particularly in the latter part of the Debate, which have touched on the questions of smartness, spit and polish, discipline and welfare. I agree with much that was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Farnham (Captain G. Nicholson). In considering what should be our policy in regard to these matters and what value should be attached to them, the only test that ultimately counts is the extent to which these and other factors contribute to the fighting spirit of the troops.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Colonel A. Evans)


spoke about welfare officers and suggested that they should be put on a paid basis. The hon. Member for East Hull (Mr. Muff), on the other hand, complimented the welfare officers upon the fine unpaid work which they were doing. I do not propose now to go into the administrative questions which my hon. and gallant Friend raised. If he has had experience of any serious difficulties of this kind, perhaps he will communicate with me, and I will have the matter looked into. I should, however, like to take this opportunity to express to the welfare officers throughout the country the gratitude which the War Office feel for the untiring and extremely valuable work which they have been doing without receiving any remuneration and very often at great person sacrifice to themselves.

Colonel A. Evans: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of welfare, with regard to the welfare organisation with our Armies abroad, the Director-General of Welfare has recently returned from an extended tour of our Middle East and Far East fronts, which presupposes that there are welfare organisations in being with the field commands and base headquarters there. Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether they are conducted on a voluntary basis or whether the officers employed on that duty are borne on the establishments of the commands?

Mr. Sandys: I shall also be glad to discuss that question with my hon. and gallant Friend. There have been several speakers who have referred to the Commandos. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) asked about the tactics and training of Commandos. I can assure my hon. Friend, without going into details, that the organisation of the Commandos is as flexible and as adaptable as one could possibly desire. There are no hard and fast preconceptions as to tactics. My hon. Friend may be quite sure that the experience which has been obtained in the Far East of Japanese infiltration tactics and of Russian guerilla methods has been studied and that the lessons will be applied under suitable conditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett) said very rightly that we must not leave all the fighting to be

done by the Commandos. That principle is, of course, fully accepted. Training of the Commando variety is already being extended to other classes of units, and in the latest raids some of these other units have been included in the expeditions. For example, detachments of the South Wales Borderers and of the Royal Fusiliers took part in a recent raid. This development is proving most successful, and there is every intention of extending it further.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Farnham asked about division of responsibility between the War Office and the British Red Cross Society in relation to prisoners of war. I am glad to make the position clear, though I did not realise there was any misapprehension on the point. In regard to detailed Service questions, the individual Service Department is naturally responsible. On the other hand all general questions of policy concerning the welfare of prisoners of war, of all three Services, are the responsibility of the War Office. The War Office has entrusted to the British Red Cross Society the task of sending to prisoners of war parcels containing food, medical comforts and clothing, and also the task of despatching next-of-kin parcels. The War Office take full responsibility for having decided that the British Red Cross Society, with its international connections, was the best organisation to undertake this task. The War Office cannot on the other hand accept responsibility for the detailed day-to-day administration of the British Red Cross Society. The position is that if at any time we felt the British Red Cross Society was not discharging these duties to our satisfaction, it would be our responsibility to decide whether a change of arrangements was necessary. There is, however, no reason to suppose that anything is amiss, and the War Office is satisfied that these important functions entrusted to the Red Cross are being well and efficiently discharged.

Mr. Mander: What is to happen in regard to the inquiry into this very matter which was to be carried out by the Lord Privy Seal? Is it now to be carried out by somebody else, or will it have to wait until he comes back? In view of the great urgency of the matter, could the hon. Gentleman see that arrangements are made for an inquiry to be held by somebody else and for it to take place immediately?

Mr. Sandys: If my right hon. and learned Friend is not able to carry out his inquiry before he leaves, I can assure my hon. Friend that alternative arrangements will be made to deal with the matter on the lines announced to the House.

Captain Nicholson: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said to clarity the position, but can he say whether the War Office keeps an eye upon the activities of the British Red Cross Society with a view to anticipating any breakdown which may occur, anticipating it some way ahead in time for steps to be taken to deal with it? For instance, if a breakdown were to take place two or three months hence and parcels ceased to reach our prisoners of war, would it come as an unpleasant surprise to the War Office, or are they in constant consultation with the British Red Cross Society to see that such a breakdown does not take place, because there are always apprehensions that such breakdowns may occur?

Mr. Sandys: We are in close and constant touch with the British Red Cross Society.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: The previous inquiry was under the jurisdiction of the Leader of the House, who now has other duties to perform. Will the new inquiry be under the jurisdiction of the present Leader of the House or under the jurisdiction of the War Office itself?

Mr. Sandys: Some arrangement satisfactory to the House as a whole will be made, and if my right hon. and learned Friend is not able to undertake this task before he leaves, a statement will be made to the House explaining what is proposed.

Mr. De la Bère: It should be independent of the War Office. It should not be a Departmental inquiry.

Mr. Sandys: There is no question of a Departmental inquiry. The British Red Cross Society is not part of the War Office. A question was asked by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street about a proposal, which was supported by the Beveridge Committee, to pool the mechanical engineering resources of the Army. In the Debates on the Army Estimates, I stated that a decision on this subject would not be very long

delayed. I am now able to announce that it has been decided to bring together the greater part of the Army's engineering maintenance services and form them into a new and separate corps. The new corps will be made up of three principal components; first, the entire engineering side of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps; secondly, the maintenance personnel of the Royal Army Service Corps, with the exception of formation workshop platoons and independent companies; thirdly, it will embrace a large part of the mechanical maintenance personnel of the Royal Engineers.
This far-reaching measure of reorganisation will entail not only extensive administrative changes, but also large-scale transfers of personnel. I must, therefore, warn hon. Members not to expect that this can all happen overnight. It is bound to take a certain amount of time, but there will be no avoidable delay.

Mr. Davidson: What are you going to call the new Corps?

Mr. Sandys: I am not in a position to christen the child to-day.

Sir T. Moore: As this proposal is almost a revolution may we have an opportunity to discuss the matter?

Mr. Sandys: I thought that the House would like to receive that information as early as possible. The question of further debate can if desired be considered later. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) asked me about two matters. The first was travelling allowances for the Home Guard. I think I told him recently in answer to a question that this matter was being sympathetically considered. I hope to be in a position to make an announcement shortly. His other question was in regard to the use of the powers of compulsory enrolment for the Home Guard. At the time those powers were granted it was explained to the House that the question as to when and where compulsory enrolment should be introduced would be determined by the operational needs in each area.

Mr. Davidson: And the equipment available.

Mr. Sandys: I now have to inform the House that in certain parts of the country


where voluntary recruitment has been insufficient, it has become urgently necessary, on military grounds, to bring Home Guard units up to strength. It has accordingly been decided to bring into force the powers of compulsory enrolment in Civil Defence Regions Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 12. These regions correspond approximately to the areas embraced by the Eastern, South-Eastern, and Southern military commands. As regards the rest of the country, compulsory enrolment will be introduced in further areas as and when it becomes necessary.

Mr. Mathers: Will a warning be given about the imminence of compulsory enrolment, in order that there may be a final opportunity for those who have not enrolled to come forward?

Mr. Lawson: Do I understand from the Minister that it is intended to extend the compulsion throughout the country, or does it apply to the regions he mentioned because they have not come up to scratch?

Mr. Sandys: It applies at present only to those regions which I have mentioned. If and when it becomes necessary on the same grounds to apply it to further regions, that will be done in the same way. I do not share the view of the hon. Member who asked for a further opportunity for voluntary enrolment. It could hardly be described as voluntary enrolment once people knew that if they did not enrol voluntarily they would be compelled to do so.

Mr. Davidson: In areas where it has been found necessary to compel men to join the Home Guard, are the units in question fully equipped at present? It is no use calling men up if you cannot equip them.

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member may be sure that we are not introducing compulsion in order to enrol men whom we have no means of equipping.

Captain Nicholson: Does not the Minister think that all keenness in the Home Guard may be killed in areas where compulsion is not applied, because people will say that if compulsion is necessary at all it should be general?

Mr. Sandys: Areas which manage to keep their units up to strength without

the introduction of compulsion should be proud of the fact.
Perhaps the most important topic that has been raised in the course of the Debate is in regard to the recently announced review of officers. The rapid expansion of the Army at the outbreak of war gave rise to many difficult problems. None was perhaps more difficult than that of finding, and finding quickly, large numbers of reliable officers. Every available source was drawn upon. Officers were recalled from the retired list and from all the various classes of the Reserve. Many of these officers were no longer very young, nor were they perhaps as fit and active as they had been before. But they saw that the country wanted them. They answered the call, many of them at great personal sacrifice, and they have given of their very best. The nation, and, I am sure, this House, will always feel indebted to those men for the service which they rendered, at a time when it was greatly needed.
It is, however, inevitable that, after 2½ years of war, a proportion of these older officers who are filling posts which are normally held by much younger men, should be beginning to show signs of strain. Under this scheme any officer who, for one reason or another, is no longer able to discharge his present duties with full efficiency will, if so recommended, be transferred to some other less exacting military appointment. If, in the last resort, no suitable alternative employment can be found for him, he will be released from the Army and will be free to take up civil employment. I would like to make it clear to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, in view of one or two remarks he made, that there is no question of applying any rule-of-thumb or any arbitrary age-limit to these officers. The only test will be that of suitability for the job which they hold. I was interested by a letter which I saw in the "Times" this morning from Field-Marshal Lord Birdwood on this subject. In this letter he writes:
There exists among the older type of officer some apprehension whether the 'possibility of less exacting alternative employment' is, or may be, a mere form of words.
I should like to take this opportunity of making it quite clear that this is not a mere form of words. Strenuous efforts will be made to find alternative military


employment for these officers. As part of this effort, a more intensive comb-out of younger men in sedentary staff jobs is to be undertaken. Nevertheless, there will be a certain number of officers who will have to return to civilian life. Accordingly the War Office and the Ministry of Labour are together doing everything possible to place those who are thus released in suitable jobs. The Ministry are setting up special machinery to deal with applications from officers who have been released under this scheme. In addition, the Regional Man-Power Boards have been asked to consider these officers for civilian appointments which are now held by younger men, who could then be released to join the Armed Forces. As a result of these arrangements I am hopeful that there will be very few of these officers who are released from the Army for whom useful employment cannot be found.

Sir T. Moore: Will my hon. and gallant Friend remember the Home Guard in this matter? These are just the officers we want, men who have experience and knowledge, and who, while perhaps not quite young enough to carry on in the Regular Army, are absolutely first-class men for the lighter duties of the Home Guard.

Mr. Sandys: It is not necessary for the hon. and gallant Member to remind the War Office of the existence of the Home Guard. I am hopeful that one of the results of this scheme will be to increase the strength of the Home Guard. As for the problem of filling the vacancies which will be created, I can assure the House that there need be no anxiety about finding suitable officers to take the places of those who will be retired under this scheme. To-day there is no longer the shortage of officers which was so serious a problem at the beginning of the war. Ever since then the O.C.T.U.'s have been steadily turning out a succession of picked young leaders, trained in the latest theory and practice of modern fighting. Nor will there be any difficulty in filling vacancies in the higher ranks of major and lieutenant-colonel. There are in the Army to-day, I am quite sure, plenty of fit, able and experienced officers who are well qualified for promotion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street and others have asked why the higher ranks of officers are not included in this review. It is of course

confined to officers of the rank of lieutenant-colonel and below. It has been suggested that this is due to a tenderness of heart for senior officers, but I can assure the House that that is not the case. The reason is that in the higher ranks it becomes increasingly important not merely to ensure fitness and efficiency but to see that each individual officer is, as far as possible, personally and individually suited in character and qualifications for the particular appointment which he holds. The method of a single, general review, such as the one which has been recently announced, would not adequately secure this result. The only way this can be obtained is by closely and continuously watching the performance and achievement of each individual officer. This process is going on constantly, and hon. Members can rest assured that there will be no undue hesitation in replacing senior officers who do not come up to the higher standards now required. The principle by which we are guided is that if there is any reasonable cause for doubt about an officer's capacity to command, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the men whose lives are in his hands
The review about which I have spoken deals of course with only one side of the picture. There remains the problem of ensuring that any vacancy which may at any time occur, shall as far as possible be filled, regardless of all other considerations, by the man best fitted for the job. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) asked about the system of selecting officers for commissions. In this connection, it may interest the House to know that it has been decided thoroughly to re-examine the existing methods of selecting officers, not only for commissions but also for promotions and for the higher appointments, and to consider any changes in procedure which may be necessary to ensure that the best possible use is made of the available officer material of the Army. I do not wish to suggest that the present system of selection is failing to produce the best men. On the other hand, this is so vital a matter, that it is just as well to make quite sure.
Much has been said and written about the need for aeroplanes, tanks and guns. These are, of course, the essential tools of victory. But battles are not won by


equipment alone. Leadership, perhaps more than any other single factor, will determine the success or failure of a campaign. Our resources of leadership are amongst the nation's most precious assets. We must make sure that they are not wasted.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: I am raising certain matters on which the new Joint Under-Secretary to the War Office is to reply, and I understand that he has just left the House in order to get certain information. From the welfare point of view, a large proportion of the A.T.S. stationed in the London area are not being properly looked after, and, as a result, a number of them are miserable. My attention was originally drawn to this state of affairs by a senior Chaplain of the Forces concerned. For months now A.T.S. have been quartered in billets, or in empty houses situated all over the metropolis, and many more A.T.S. are arriving. The chaplain concerned has taken me round. In many cases there is nothing in the sleeping rooms except double-decker iron bedsteads and small wooden lockers for each occupant. There are no chairs, and of course no curtains, and not even a small bit of matting by the bed-side. In many cases there has been no heating throughout the winter. Many of these rooms have had a damp atmosphere for months. I understand that some time ago the authorities promised better conditions, but nothing has come of it. Sometimes these quarters have what are called rest rooms. I have inspected one or two of the so-called rest rooms, and I can assure the House that those I have seen are just about as dreary as a morgue.
Can it be wondered at that in the evenings the occupants of these houses want to get away from such surroundings? Those who have no friends or relations in the London area are at times able to go to the cinema. More often they go to a Lyons Corner House, which is inexpensive and where, anyhow, they can get some warmth and bright lights. But most evenings they are unable to afford that, and consequently they have nowhere to go, and so they remain in their cheerless quarters and get depressed. In the St. Marylebone area the Y.W.C.A. have been good enough to offer to the A.T.S. authorities what accommodation they

could spare. I have seen that proposed accommodation, and it amounts to a large draughty passage. I understood that a stove would be placed in that passage. When furnished it is unlikely that it would accommodate more than 30 women. It might be inadvisable, if I were to say publicly the number of members of the A.T.S. in the St. Marylebone area alone, to say nothing of those who are expected, but I can inform the House that the total is considerable. The provision of suitable rest and recreation rooms for these Service women should not be left to charity, nor is it the function of Lord Nathan's welfare organisation. That organisation already has sufficient headaches. It is the responsibility of the Government, who have taken these women away from their homes, and it is the duty of the War Office to look after their well-being.
As to providing some suitable place for these members of the women's services to go to when off duty that does not necessarily cost them money. The solution is a simple one. One or two empty houses in the Central London area should be converted into non-residential clubs, and it should be the aim of those who might run such clubs to try to get away from the official atmosphere and to provide a "homey" place. I suggest that large houses should be used for this purpose so that a start could be made in a modest way on the ground floor, leaving room for expansion. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is to reply that that expansion would be required very soon. The Mayoress of St. Marylebone has a very capable and willing committee of women helpers who are prepared and well qualified to run such a club as this for women in the Services in the North London area, and I estimate that, with voluntary assistance, the amount that would have to be provided by the War Office would, at the most, not be more than £800 to £1,000 per year. Such a club would meet the needs of the North Central London area.
I would like to put this straight question to the representative of the War Office. Incidentally, I believe this will be his maiden effort as a Minister, and I take this opportunity of wishing him luck in his new venture. I am also very glad that I am to supply him with his baptism of fire, and I shall do that from now on, with my own particular type of submachine gun. I hope that his fighting


spirit, while at the War Office, will be more apparent than it was in the last speech which he made in this House as a back-bencher. I put this question: Would the War Office be prepared to agree to a year's trial of such a club, and would it not be possible to give an answer to that question to-day, at the risk of every Member present in the House fainting? Or is it necessary that for an interminable time, such a small matter as this should be referred to various departments and committees, a process which, as many of us know to our cost, generally ends in the long run in the answer coming back in the form of a very small wizened lemon.
This is an important matter. These unfortunate conditions have been in existence for many months. The amenities provided for women in war industries are much better, and I think that the comparison is unfair to women in the Services. Surely, £1,000 or £2,000 would be well spent if the result was that many women in the Services, especially in the London area, were made more contented? I use the expression "more contented," because I somehow feel that an absolutely contented woman is just about as rare as eidelweiss on Hampstead Heath. What I am drawing attention to is a serious cause for complaint. A little consideration and expenditure on the part of the War Office would pay magnificent dividends in the shape of better work and more efficiency, to say nothing of the better feeling concerning the women's Services that would be engendered all over the country. That would start as soon as these women in the Services in the London area were able to write home in happier vein.
On this question of contentment in the Services paving a dividend out of all proportion to the expenditure involved, I want to know what the much-publicised "new brooms" at the War Office are going to sweep up for the families of soldiers, who at present are getting a very raw deal. I hope that Sir James Grigg has every intention of demanding an adjustment of present conditions to the extent that the standard of living of the soldier's family shall be the same as that of the average industrial worker's family. Until that is done, I say quite frankly, and at the risk of being called every name under the sun by the authorities, that you will not get the majority of married soldiers to put their hearts into

their work, or into their fighting. Government spokesmen can indulge in as many heroics as they like, of the kind that we once heard from the ex-Under-Secretary for War when I and another Member of this House were raising matters that concerned the rate of pay of soldiers, and I was making comparisons between the pay of our soldiers and those of other soldiers that they meet in this country. Such heroics will be of no value, because the cold fact remains that if a soldier's dependants are not looked after fairly, you cannot expect to get the best out of him.
I recently told the last Secretary of State for War that if he could not manage to arrange that his soldiers, especially those of the lower ranks, were no longer underpaid, he ought to go. On a subsequent occasion, and on the same subject, I informed the late lamented Under-Secretary for War that he was quite incapable of moving with the times. When, soon afterwards, the Ministerial services of these two gentlemen were dispensed with, my heart warmed to the Prime Minister; but soon afterwards I became perplexed as to why, if the right hon. and gallant Member for Rugby (Captain Margesson) was considered an unsatisfactory Minister, the Permanent Under-Secretary to the War Office who, as we all know, was co-responsible for policy, should be the right man to take his place.

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with the Vote before the House.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: In that case, allow me to conclude by saying that the realisation of better pay and allowances for soldiers and better conditions for A.T.S. quartered in London would go a long way to provide me with an answer to that conundrum about which I have been perplexed.

Sir Henry Fildes: I wish to emphasise the query put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) as to the arming of the Home Guard. It is notorious that the equipment of the Home Guard is entirely inadequate. I can present to my hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Under-Secretary a few lines for his notebook:
Here lies a man who fought the Hun;
He had a pike, the Hun had a gun;
When his time comes to go aloft,
Whom must he blame—the Hun or Page Croft? 


[Laughter.] This is no joking matter, and I should be delighted if my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary—whom we congratulate upon his speech—could treat this question a little more seriously, because we know, and the country knows, that the Home Guard suffers from serious lack of equipment. I would like my hon. and gallant Friend to promise that he will make a personal investigation into this matter of equipment, and that he will make quite certain that when additional men are called up for the Home Guard there will be adequate equipment waiting for them.

Mr. Bellenger: I desire only to add a few words to what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid). I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend who is going to reply—and I congratulate him upon the opportunity he has of replying—will treat this matter seriously. He has just come back from the Army, and he must know that many of the things my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Marylebone said about the conditions of the A.T.S. in London apply in many parts of the country. Although many improvements have been made, arrangements for their comfort remain elementary. We expect something more than a trite answer. Nowadays we want actions, not merely words. It is not a question of not being able to find material, but of convincing the Treasury that they would be well advised to spend a little more on the welfare of the Army in general. The question does not apply to the A.T.S. only. I remember that in my talks with welfare officers, I learned that they had immense difficulty in providing these girls, not only in the London area but in much less civilised parts of the country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—much less developed parts of the country—with the most elementary amenities of existence. It has been left to charity in the past. It is not good enough in these days, when we are asking girls who have been brought up quite well, in most cases in comfortable homes, to leave those homes and serve their country in the hour of trial, to say that they shall have to suffer the same rough conditions as men are expected to undergo. These girls in many cases have taken over the

bare barrack rooms that men have left. In many cases they have had to go into not only uncomfortable, but insanitary, conditions.
I would particularly direct the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend to the Ack-Ack sites, where women are serving with men in the mixed batteries. The conditions there, as far as personal hygiene is concerned, are not entirely satisfactory. We who are parents, although we have some compunction in allowing our children to go, realise the necessity for it, but we expect the War Office to leave no stone unturned to see that these girls enjoy reasonable amenities of life. I assert—and I believe that my hon. and gallant Friend knows this to be the truth—that that is not the case to-day. The House expects him to improve the welfare part of the War Office, which is badly in need of it. He should, first of all, obtain more money and insist upon the Quartermaster-General's Department of the War Office providing more amenities such as electric light in some of these outstations which do not possess them to-day. There is a great necessity for electric light even if they can get no other amenities. When they are off duty they want to be able to read a book in reasonable comfort, and it is not asking too much, surely. These conditions prevail in the Army to-day, not only among the A.T.S., but among the men as well. We do not want to mollycoddle our Army, neither the girls nor the men, but we ask that they shall have comfortable conditions comparable with those which my hon. and gallant Friend has experienced as an officer serving in the Army. It is up to him, as one who has recently served in the Army, to see that the reasonable demands that we have made are acceded to, and we shall judge him not by what he says, but by what he does. If he gives the Army these things he will be a great success in this House.
I would like to ask my hon. and gallant Friend whether he is going to reply to that somewhat serious accusation which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay). Either it is true or it is not, and if it is not true, it should be disposed of in this House at once. I refer to the allegation against the Director of the A.T.S. If the suggestions of my hon. Friend are not true, they ought to be disposed of in this House, otherwise that lady will be


suffering under a sense of grievance. The late Secretary at State for War, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby (Captain Margesson), made a statement in this House previously, and evidently my hon. Friend has thought fit to bring up this case again to-day. Will my hon. and gallant Friend dispose of it once and for all, because if it is not disposed of, there will be a continuing feeling among certain parts of the A.T.S. that the supreme leader of that force is not the type of leader one would naturally expect? I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend is in a position to reply to the statement that has been made in the House to-day, but it ought not to he allowed to go unchallenged.

Lieut.-Colonel H. Guest: I do not propose to intervene for more than a minute, but as the vexed question of the Home Guard has been mentioned, I would like to make a suggestion to my hon. and gallant Friend. The difficulty in the Home Guard really is one of trained officers, and possibly some of the officers who may be too old for active service in the Regular Army might be allowed to continue to some extent their services with the Home Guard. The other point concerns the question of instructors for the Home Guard, particularly in the remote districts. There is a difficulty in regard to these instructors, and I wonder whether there could be a corps of instructors in the Home Guard, perhaps of older men who have the time to give instruction or whose services might be employed although they were too old for active service. If these two points can be placed before the War Office, I shall be very grateful.

Mr. McKie: I rise to support what was said by my hon. Friend and near political neighbour the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Fildes) regarding the Home Guard. My hon. Friend amused the House, as he invariably does, by quoting some lines regarding the present condition of equipment of that very valuable corps. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that things have shown a marked improvement over the last 21 months since that body first came into existence, but there still remains a very great deal to be done. I hope that the new Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who I understand is to reply—and, like my

hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid), I heartily congratulate him upon having obtained Front Bench rank—will be able to lift the curtain a little more on this matter.
There is another point which was touched upon by my hon. Friend who has already replied on behalf of the War Office regarding the question of compulsion or conscription for the Home Guard. My hon. Friend mentioned three or four regional areas where it is intended to introduce some measure of conscription or compulsion forthwith. No doubt I shall have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries in saying that I am very sorry that Scotland has not yet been included. The area of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) does not concern me so much as does my own area and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, as we represent very wide and scattered areas. The two of us represent over 100,000 people, stretching from Gretna Green to the Mull of Galloway, over 100 miles, and a very scattered and highly vulnerable area, where the ordinary citizens are seriously disturbed about the state of affairs. I know that the question of whether conscription or compulsion is to be introduced is very seriously exercising the minds of those who are responsible for running the Home Guard. I have not had an opportunity of bringing the matter to the notice of my hon. and gallant Friend, and I had no intention of speaking had not the question appertaining to the Home Guard not already been raised, but I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend and those who are responsible at the War Office will take this matter very much to heart. It is a very serious point indeed. Those who are responsible for running this very valuable body of men want to know where they stand in these very vulnerable areas. I wholly dissociate myself from the remarks of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers), who expressed the hope that there would be a further opportunity of withdrawal for those who wish to withdraw from the Home Guard.

Mr. Mathers: May I have an opportunity of putting the hon. Member right? I asked that before, finally, compulsion is applied some warning should be given in the area where it is


found necessary to apply compulsion in order at least that it is known that compulsion is definitely coming in unless sufficient recruits are obtained, so that those who have not yet responded to the call may have an opportunity of making that response. I think that they ought to have an opportunity of getting the force up to strength without any necessity for compulsion being applied.

Mr. McKie: I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, and I at once apologise. I thought that he was making a plea for a further opportunity to be given to members of the Home Guard to withdraw, and I was going to say that, as far as Scotland was concerned, there was no objection to compulsion. I did not hear him correctly and I apologise, and I hope that the War Office will seriously consider the points raised forthwith, or as soon as practicable, and let those who are responsible for running the Home Guard know the result.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for War (Major Arthur Henderson): I hope the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) will not be disappointed if, craving the indulgence of the House, at any rate on this occasion, I do not reply to some of the points which have been raised in this discussion. I can, however, assure him as well as the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Fildes) and the hon. and gallant Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Lieut.-Colonel Guest) that the points which have been raised will certainly receive the consideration of the War Office. I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) has said with reference to myself. As he said, I have just returned from the Army, and I hope that, although I served as an officer, just as he did himself, none the less my interest in the welfare of all members of our Forces will be found to be just as great as that of those who have served in other capacities. I have no doubt that he and I may differ from time to time as to what is desirable or necessary, but I can assure him that, at all events, my intentions will be as much above suspicion as, I have no doubt, he would like his own to be viewed.
In regard to the reference he made as to the alleged conduct of the Director of the A.T.S., I am afraid I shall have to

disappoint him, because at the moment I have nothing to add to what was said by the late Secretary of State for War when he replied to a Question on this subject and said that he had satisfied himself that her conduct on the occasion referred to was wholly correct. That is the position which we take up on this particular episode. The hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) raised the question of the conditions of the A.T.S. in the London district. I apologise for not being in the House for the first few minutes of his speech, but, as I understood, he was drawing attention to what I think is a transit camp in his own constituency.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: No, not necessarily a transit camp only, but the conditions which also prevail among a large number of A.T.S. personnel who are permanent.

Major Henderson: Well, I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that I will give my personal attention to the allegations he has made. I will have inquiries made, and I will endeavour to satisfy myself that, if conditions are as he says, everything possible will be done to improve them. I am sure, though, that he does not expect me on this occasion to be able to deal with any particular hostel or hostels which he has in mind, but in so far as he has mentioned a particular hostel or other billet, I will certainly have a precise investigation made with a view to putting the matter right so far as it may be wrong. But in all fairness I should refer to the general position in London though I cannot, of course, speak from my own personal knowledge. I have been in the Department only four or five days, and I will not attempt to suggest to the House that I can speak on matters within my own knowledge. But I am advised that, as far as the London District is concerned, the conditions generally are reasonably satisfactory. That does not mean that in certain cases there may not be conditions that are not up to the required standard. I hope we shall be able to put them right, and to that extent we appreciate the hon. and gallant Gentleman's intervention in bringing them to our notice. If hon. Members bring these things to our notice, we shall be only too glad to try to put matters right
However, I think it is only right to say that, generally speaking, conditions in the London District, as far as the A.T.S. are concerned, are reasonably satisfactory. The House may be interested to know that the 1,000 to 2,000 members of the A.T.S. who are stationed in London—the figure is a fluctuating one, of course—are accommodated in the married quarters of barracks, a number of requisitioned hotels, flats, and large private houses; there are roughly, 30 separate buildings which are being used for military purposes. I do not say that in every case the conditions are entirely satisfactory, but it is right to say that, in the main, these places have adequate heating arrangements, the sanitary arrangements are on the whole satisfactory, there are recreation rooms, and I think the sleeping accommodation is such that there is no question of any allegation of overcrowding. In three or four cases it was found that billets were not up to the required standard, and I am informed that improvements to rectify them are in hand at the present time. But, of course, even the War Office is dependent upon the availability of material and labour, and this is one of the difficulties which we, just as any other Department, have to contend with when it comes to a question of repairs. Although the hon. and gallant Member spread his net rather wide—and in vain—because I am not prepared here and now to commit the War Office in relation to the experiment to which he referred, I hope he will derive satisfaction from my statement that certainly I am prepared to consider any proposal that he puts forward.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Will the experiment suggested be considered?

Major Henderson: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member, and other hon. Members, that any suggestion put forward affecting the welfare of the A.T.S., or any of the troops, will certainly receive consideration. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not have to use his machine gun too often on me, but if he does, I hope that I shall be able to make a successful counter-attack on him.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Second and Third Resolutions agreed to.

REPORT [4th March].

Resolutions reported;

AIR ESTIMATES, 1942.

NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE.

1. "That such number of Officers and Airmen, as His Majesty may deem necessary, be borne for the Air Force Service of the United Kingdom at Home and Abroad, excluding those serving in India on the Indian Establishment, during the yeas ending on the 31st day of March, 1943."

PAY, & C., OF THE AIR FORCE.

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £100 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, &c., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943."

AIR SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1941.

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year."


Schedule.



Sums not exceeding.


Supply Grants.
Appropriations in Aid.


Vote.
£
£


1. Pay, &amp;c, of the Air Force.
10
50,000,000

First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mrs. Rathbone: There is a brief point I wish to raise about an anomaly in pay in the Royal Air Force. First of all, I should like, if I may, to take this, the first chance I have had of speaking about Royal Air Force matters in the House of Commons, to thank the Air Ministry for the promptness with which they have always dealt with the many cases I have brought to their attention. Naturally, during the past years of war I have had a good deal to do with the Royal Air Force, and I have always found them most helpful, sympathetic and cooperative. In raising this anomaly in pay, I should like to say that it would really seem platitudinous to argue about money matters concerning members of the Royal Air Force who are at all times so


willing to give their services and not count the cost. But there is one point which wants looking into. The average officer who is training for operational work while doing training is allowed to live out with his family and is given a living-out allowance. He then passes from training to an operational station, where it is quite different. He has to live in the station. His family remain at home, and the wife, with his children, if that be the case, has to try to keep up a home ready for her husband when he comes off operational work, and is considerably less well off financially than when her husband was living at home. Admittedly it costs extra to have an officer living in the house, but the difference in the pay is considerably more. At the same time the officer has to pay certain mess fees while on an operational station. In other words, it has always seemed to me that a pilot officer going on operational work is in some sense placed in financial jeopardy, besides all the other jeopardies which he has to suffer. I shall be extremely sorry if I am not in my place when the Under-Secretary replies, but I have to address a meeting. This is a matter I have wanted to raise for some time.
In conclusion, I would say that we are all going through a period of depression in the country over the effects of the various disasters in the war. But it is always an encouraging thing to talk to a Royal Air Force pilot who is on active service, and to realise that he and his comrades are really whole-heartedly at work seven days in the week. If we could only run our lives on that same line, by giving all and not counting the cost, we should be well on the way to the reconsecration which must come if we are to win this war.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I imagine, from the informal conversations I have had with you, Mr. Speaker, that I should be in Order in referring again to the policy of the Royal Air Force, or the Air Ministry, in regard to the question of bombing industrial targets in Germany, and in regard to the defence of aerodromes.

Mr. Speaker: Aerodromes have nothing to do with this Vote.

Sir T. Moore: Surely aerodromes have to be protected by the new Royal Air

Force Regiment which was brought into being?

Mr. Speaker: Curiously enough, they are protected under another Vote.

Sir T. Moore: Naturally I accept your Ruling. But am I entitled to refer to the numbers of Royal Air Force personnel and the purposes to which they are used?

Mr. Speaker: The numbers of Royal Air Force personnel certainly come into this Vote.

Sir T. Moore: It would be very little use my discussing the numbers of the personnel if one could not indicate the justification for that discussion by asking or suggesting how they should best be employed. That is why I was hoping I might be permitted to refer for a second or two to certain discouraging words or discouraging speeches which were made last week in regard to the use of the Royal Air Force in bombing industrial and other targets in Germany. A number of hon. Members tried to convince my right hon. and gallant Friend that there was no longer any utility in bombing targets in Germany. It seemed to me that, no doubt unwittingly, they were serving as loud speakers for Goebbels. I paid a visit to Germany after the last war and came across a very intelligent German officer who had been in the intelligence service. We had many discussions about the effect of the war, and one thing that he repeatedly rubbed in, was that the Germans feared bombing more than anything else and were glad that the war had come to an end and that they could feel certain that they would not be bombed. I was relieved in my mind by the statement of the Secretary of State, when he made it clear, in categorical terms, that the policy of the Air Force was to continue bombing Germany relentlessly.

Mr. Speaker: That matter might be raised on the salary of the Secretary of State, but I do not think it is in Order on this Vote.

Sir T. Moore: Would not my remarks be in Order in relation to the pay of the Air Force—those who carry out the instructions of the Secretary of State?

Mr. Speaker: The pay of the Air Force certainly comes under this Vote, but questions of policy would not be in Order.

Sir T. Moore: Would the use of the new Air Force Regiment for the defence of aerodromes come under it?

Mr. Speaker: I should say that that, generally, would be in Order.

Sir T. Moore: The more one studies the policy recently announced by the right hon. Gentleman, the more confusing it becomes. A short time ago I received a letter from an aerodrome defence officer who was bitterly disappointed because he could get little support, or encouragement, from the station commander in regard to the defence of his own aerodrome. He said the station commander was essentially preoccupied with flying and with the capacity of his pilots and machines. We all admire that regard for the pilots and machines, but surely experience has told us that neither pilot nor machine will be of much use if there is not an aerodrome. The right hon. Baronet, as a means of assuaging the anxieties of the House, said that all would now be well because we were instituting an R.A.F. Regiment for the defence of aerodromes.
I do not want to minimise the effect of that description of the duties of the R.A.F. Regiment, but it seems to me that it is quite unworkable, and I am sure I am not alone in that thought. If and when we have invasion, it will surely be preceded or accompanied by a series of almighty blitzes from the air, whether the invasion is seaborne or airborne. If so, surely the main portion of the R.A.F. Regiment will then be employed on the very job for which they are trained; that is, re-surfacing and re-equipping, filling-up bomb craters, and so on at the aerodrome. Therefore, although I willingly accept my right hon. Friend's assurance I cannot quite see that the R.A.F. Regiment, consisting largely of R.A.F. personnel drawn from the aerodrome, can be an effective instrument for the defence of the aerodrome. The further development of the command which my right hon. Friend envisaged renders the position still more obscure. It has to be under the command of the station commander, but at some unspecified and highly uncertain time during the invasion it comes under the operational command of the area Army commander. This is a sort of tortuous maze, and it is difficult to understand exactly what functions it can carry out,

under whose control they can be carried out, and when control devolves from the station commander to the area Army commander; in other words, how the men composing this force are to carry out the defence of aerodromes when the invasion comes. That is the real problem with which I have been faced, and with which other Members have been concerned. I can speak for some with whom I have consulted, and we feel that there is only one real solution. That is, that the ground defence of an aerodrome, like the defence of a factory or any other war establishment, is the job of the Army, and that the military commander of the area must be responsible.
You, Sir, have rather restricted the scope of my argument, because I was going to refer to a subject which your predecessor in the Chair permitted the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) to develop. That is the question of co-operation between the Air forces and the land forces. The hon. and gallant Gentleman developed this subject at some length and endeavoured to persuade the Government and the House that the Army should have its own operational aircraft. We all agree on that, and we would extend the principle to the Navy as well. We all wonder why this obvious reorganisation does not take place. On many occasions doubts have been expressed whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had sufficient power over the Air Ministry and the senior Air.officers, and whether the latter were not afraid of an encroachment on their status and powers if they yielded now. This is the kind of rumour that is going round, and I feel that the Secretary of State should be made aware of it, because it is not good for the Air Force and the Air Ministry that these doubts should go round without being squashed. I know that my right hon. Friend said in the last Debate that there was no truth in them, but the rumour persists that owing to the vested interests created as a result of these comparatively junior officers being forced by the expansion of the Air Force into high positions, they may, even with the national existence at stake, be unwilling, by lack of judgment or of years, to forgo the power and position which they hold in the Air Ministry as sole controllers of this vast and growing force.
I should not have intervened on this question had I not realised that there is a feeling of frustration and of anxiety throughout the country as to the proper utilisation of all our Armed Forces, including the Air Force. I feel that the people of this country are saying: "We are being encouraged to give blood, sweat and tears, encouraged by the Ministry of Aircraft Production and other Ministries to work harder and longer, give up more of our time, give up our holidays, give up our travel, and how is all this blood, sweat and tears to be used? Is it going to be thrown on one side? Is it going to be yielded up at Singapore? Are we going to see our big ships going down because Japanese bombers could choose just where they wanted to launch their air attack?"

Mr. Speaker: Surely the hon. and gallant Member is going far away from this Vote.

Sir T. Moore: Perhaps I was carried away a little. I will finish my remarks by saying that the British people and the Empire are tired of inefficiency, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will try, with such powers as he has, to produce an organisation directed by people who are worthy of the men whom they direct.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I should like to have an assurance about the care taken to prevent accidents, particularly to young pilots, in the Air Force. I feel confident that every care is taken before young pilots are put into any position of responsibility, but my attention was drawn to this subject a week or two ago, though I need not mention the place I have in mind nor, indeed, the number of accidents which occurred in a comparatively short time, because to draw any useful conclusions one would have to know the number of pilots who were flying there and how often they flew. While we are all lost in admiration of the dexterity of these young pilots who do all manner of tricks in the sky, there must be a period of their career before they have acquired full confidence in themselves. Probably they have the skill but are just lacking in confidence. They have certainly sweated and spent agonising hours in preparing themselves for the tasks that lie ahead. It is at that final stage that I hope the greatest care will

be taken to prevent accidents, because all that effort to which I have referred will have been wasted if there should be an accident. We have to take into account that sometimes climatic conditions here are entirely different from what some of these young men have been used to, visibility here is different, and great judgment has to be displayed in estimating distances both in taking off and in landing. I feel that before these young pilots are given full control of machines they ought to be accompanied in the air for a time. I should like to ask for an assurance that every care will be taken in this matter.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): The hon. Lady the Member for Bodmin (Mrs. Rathbone), whose intervention in our Debate is welcome on all sides of the House, said it was the first time she had spoken on air matters in this House but I know that we shall all look forward to her contributions on that subject in future. She was kind enough to pay a tribute to the Air Ministry for its method of dealing with individual cases. I shall be happy to pass on that tribute to those members of our administrative staff who carry the burden of that work, which is very considerable. Very often the Executive are, quite rightly, subjected to criticism in this House, but it is all too rare for us to get a tribute and I know all members of our staff will be glad to receive it in this case.
The hon. Lady put a question on what she called an anomaly. If I may put it in a sentence she said that when a married officer lives out, he is in receipt of married allowance and lodging allowance, but when he lives in, he is in receipt of consolidated allowance, and that as it works out, he is less well off when he lives in than when he lives out. I think that is her case. The hon. Lady must be aware that there is, at present, in none of the operational commands any order that air crews must live in. Indeed, in the majority of cases, the air crews live out. There are times, however, when, under the stress of operations, air crews may be ordered to live in for certain periods. It is a very difficult problem and not one which can be dealt with in relation only to the Air Force. It is an inter-Service matter, affecting the Army and Navy as well. We have the problem under review


and I hope that we shall be able to come to some arrangement by which, when air crews are ordered in, they will not lose by it. I cannot give any assurance except to say that this issue is very much alive and that it is one with which I have a great deal of sympathy.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) may be assured that we shall go on bombing the Germans. About aerodrome defence, this rests with the Army, but we have, by agreement with the Army, formed the Royal Air Force Regiment to help in that task. I am not going into the details now of those questions which my hon. and gallant Friend raised, but I suggest that he should read the Debate on this matter, when he will find the subject will be clear to him. He made one fundamental error when he said that the Royal Air Force Regiment consisted of mechanics and airmen, and when he asked how they could do their work of tending the aircraft and at the same time defend the aerodromes. If he will read the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, and my attempt at answering questions, he will see that the Royal Air Force Regiment is composed of men who specialise upon aerodrome defence only, and that those men to whom he was referring are known as "backers-up," ordinary men on the aerodromes, who can be employed in backing-up the Royal Air Force Regiment, if their other duties so allow. I should be very happy at any time to enlighten him, to the best of my ability and the ability of my Department, if he will come along and see me.
I was very glad indeed that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) raised the question of accidents, because one of the tragic aspects of the administration of a Service Department such as the Air Ministry, which my right hon. Friend and myself have to face, is that the air, even in peace-time, has always taken its toll of human life and that in war the toll is much greater. I can assure him that we regard accidents as incidents which must be investigated and sifted to the uttermost. We are always anxious about accidents; we can never be happy or complacent or satisfied so long as accidents, which might possibly be avoided, occur. We have a complete accidents branch; we sift out statistics of all accidents with a view to finding out

whether a particular type of aeroplane is more prone to accidents than to others and whether a particular age group is inclined to be more prone to accidents than another; we study meteorological conditions and get a series of cross sections of all the circumstances attending accidents.
As regards the boys and young men who come from abroad, as the products of the great Commonwealth Joint Air Training plan, the point made about their coming to a new climate, is, I think, met by the fact that they go to one or two reception depots where they are given certain routine work and where, in future, they are to learn something about the fundamentals of the sister Services, the Army and the Navy, for a period of three or four weeks. This will allow them to become acclimatised. Before they are allowed to go up in the air again, they always go up in a dual control machine, with an instructor to see that they have not lost their skill, and to rub up their knowledge again. I think I have answered the Questions put by my hon. Friend and I trust that the House will accept our assurance that my right hon. Friend and I will keep a strict look-out on accidents at all times.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to deal with the matter I raised the other day—why the Royal Air Force is being trained on biplanes when all operational work is carried out on monoplanes? There was, at one time, I believe, a prototype of the Magister which appeared to be suitable for the purpose, and I shall be glad to have information on the point.

Captain Balfour: I will gladly answer that point. Biplanes are used to any extent in the training of pilots, only at the elementary stage, and at this stage the biplane has been found to be satisfactory and economical in use. It is our experience that pilots receiving their initial training on biplanes show no variation in skill, as compared with pilots who have received elementary training on monoplane types. I cannot agree that the biplane is inefficient or wasteful, or is not giving our young men a fair chance. On the other hand, the biplane has not got all the modern developments associated with the low-wing monoplane, and it is desirable


to introduce our young men to these particular characteristics at the earliest possible stage. Therefore, as our supply of biplanes fades away, so are we bringing in a supply of elementary trainers of the low-wing monoplane type. I hope that will satisfy my hon. Friend.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL).

Bill to provide, during twelve months, for the discipline and regulation of the Army and the Air Force, ordered to be brought in by Major Arthur Henderson, Mr. Alexander, Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. Sandys and Captain Balfour.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL,

"to provide during 12 months, for the discipline and regulation of the Army and the Air Force," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 17.]

Remaining Resolutions agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Adamson.]